For well over a century now, the idea that something about modernity will ultimately cause religion to wither away has been practically axiomatic among modern, sophisticated Westerners.1 Known in philosophy as Friedrich Nietzsche's famous story of the madman who runs into the marketplace declaring that "Gott ist tot," and in sociology as the "secularization thesis," it is an idea that many urbane men and women no longer even think to question, so self-evident does it appear.2 As people become more educated and more prosperous, the secularist story line goes, they find themselves both more skeptical of religion's premises and less needful of its ostensible consolations.3 Hence, somewhere in the long run -- perhaps even the very long run; Nietzsche himself predicted it would take "hundreds and hundreds" of years for the "news" to reach everyone -- religion, or more specifically the Christianity so long dominant on the Continent, will die out.

As we learn more and more about how nature and the universe works, there is less of a need for society to fill in the gaps of our understanding with "God did it"

I mean if in my lifetime we discover how living matter is created from non living, I will be a full blown atheist.

PhinPhan1227

06-22-2007, 12:56 PM

Again, there's a big difference between religion and faith. The other consideration is the fact that an awful lot of the good works that take place on this planet are organized by religious institutions.

Majpain

06-22-2007, 01:20 PM

The faster it dies out the better :)

Don't know that it will ever. Also why would life be better if there is no belief system like that? Yeah it has caused wars but who's not to say that a whole planet not believing in anything how would that look?

PhinPhan1227

06-22-2007, 01:25 PM

Don't know that it will ever. Also why would life be better if there is no belief system like that? Yeah it has caused wars but who's not to say that a whole planet not believing in anything how would that look?

Please, lets not start the whole "religion has started wars" debate again.

Majpain

06-22-2007, 02:25 PM

Please, lets not start the whole "religion has started wars" debate again.

Do the Crusades ring a bell?

Celtkin

06-22-2007, 02:45 PM

Do the Crusades ring a bell?

Oh, here we go :lol:

I think there is already a thread in this forum covers both sides of the religion and wars idea (http://www.finheaven.com/boardvb2/showthread.php?t=200579)

PhinPhan1227

06-22-2007, 02:58 PM

Oh, here we go :lol:

I think there is already a thread in this forum covers both sides of the religion and wars idea (http://www.finheaven.com/boardvb2/showthread.php?t=200579)

Thanks, I'm exhausted on that one.

Quelonio

06-22-2007, 03:01 PM

The thing is, you have to consider how much of religion is really about God, and how much is really about a certain amount of need for a sense of Community?

I think there is a lot for the second, I think religion exists to a big extent so that people with similar interests get together to share an experience, and that is a basic human need, so as far as that need for community is there, and I don't think that is going away, I believe it is just simply going to be there.

Majpain

06-22-2007, 04:22 PM

:lol: I was just saying.

adamprez2003

06-24-2007, 02:26 AM

God will always prevail over science because deep in our DNA we know that the randomness that science preaches is the creator of man is a poor replacement for the certainty that there was a guiding hand in our creation. We may not know who or what or why but we all know instinctively and logically that the mathematical leaps of faith that science proposes are the basis for our consciousness are a poor substitute for the mathematically better odds that we were created, uplifted or genetically altered through some ancient hand. Call it God or alien intelligence but it is far more likely that we were created consciously rather than randomly. The odds against randomness creating such intelligence in such a short period of time while at the same time keeping this evolution seperate from every other life form here on Earth and on every other planet we have examined suggests an active hand

ckb2001

06-24-2007, 01:43 PM

God will always prevail over science because deep in our DNA we know that the randomness that science preaches is the creator of man is a poor replacement for the certainty that there was a guiding hand in our creation. We may not know who or what or why but we all know instinctively and logically that the mathematical leaps of faith that science proposes are the basis for our consciousness are a poor substitute for the mathematically better odds that we were created, uplifted or genetically altered through some ancient hand. Call it God or alien intelligence but it is far more likely that we were created consciously rather than randomly. The odds against randomness creating such intelligence in such a short period of time while at the same time keeping this evolution seperate from every other life form here on Earth and on every other planet we have examined suggests an active hand

I think every sentence in your paragraph is either false or likely not true.

Let's start with the odds you speak of. If it's really true that there is a higher probability we were created by a God, then you should be able to show us that calculation.

For example, the universe we live in apparently operates according to what we call the laws of nature - mathematical relations that most accurately predict the data gathered (it's ironic isn't it that it is science, not religion, that gives us this information.. this information on what "God's creation" really is like).

Well, there's no a priori reason why say energy (a measurement we can make in Joules) should be related to mass (another measurement, usually made in grams or kilograms) according to E = mc^2, where c is a constant and equals the speed of light.

Pray tell us why that equation is more likely to be true than E = mc^3?.. or E = m/c?

IF you really can show there are mathematically better odds for a God existing, then you should be able to show why Nature as we know it is the most likely of all possible "Natures", specifically by doing this with relations science has found out.

If you can't do that, then you simply have no evidence for your claim.

No, it's worse. One can actually show the probability God exists is ZERO!! Why? Because one can fit an infinite number of distinct mathematical functions through ANY set of finite data, and humans have only collected finite data throughout their history! Furthermore, there are an infinite number of functions that perfectly predict all data (as long as it's finite) to be gathered in the future such that NO possible distinction in terms of accuracy among those functions could EVER be made by humans.

Sure, at least one of those functions could include some catch-all variable you can label as God, but an infinite number will not (the form of the function could vary in an infinite number of ways).

That proves the probability God exists is ZERO! Which of course doesn't imply God doesn't exist. I mean the probability of choosing the number 5 from the set of all integers is zero, but it can happen.

You however claimed there are "mathematically better odds" a God exists.

I think you have no clue what you're talking about (if you could prove that, it's worth more than a Nobel Prize). But, please, just in the infinitesmally unlikely case you do, please show us this calculation (and you HAVE to show the calculation to provide credence to your claim since otherwise you have nothing to rebut the calculation I gave the probability God exists is zero!)

muscle979

06-24-2007, 02:39 PM

Don't know that it will ever. Also why would life be better if there is no belief system like that? Yeah it has caused wars but who's not to say that a whole planet not believing in anything how would that look?

You don't need the fear of an invisible man setting you on fire to get you to act right. Deep down inside, the reason that people who act morally do so is not because of fear of God, it's because they know their actions will make the world a better and easier place to live in. What's wrong with believing in mankind? Why does someone need to believe in an invisible being that insists on blind faith and constant worship, and one who also threatens you with death if you don't comply?

Metal Panda

06-24-2007, 08:33 PM

God to me is not dead because to me, he isn't real. I believe in supernatural phenomenon and don't think we can explain all of the things that happen in life. That, however, does not prove the existence of a God. Some studies have shown it's possible we are hard-wired to psychologically believe in God with physiological causes too.

adamprez2003

06-25-2007, 12:20 AM

I think every sentence in your paragraph is either false or likely not true.

Let's start with the odds you speak of. If it's really true that there is a higher probability we were created by a God, then you should be able to show us that calculation.

For example, the universe we live in apparently operates according to what we call the laws of nature - mathematical relations that most accurately predict the data gathered (it's ironic isn't it that it is science, not religion, that gives us this information.. this information on what "God's creation" really is like).

Well, there's no a priori reason why say energy (a measurement we can make in Joules) should be related to mass (another measurement, usually made in grams or kilograms) according to E = mc^2, where c is a constant and equals the speed of light.

Pray tell us why that equation is more likely to be true than E = mc^3?.. or E = m/c?

IF you really can show there are mathematically better odds for a God existing, then you should be able to show why Nature as we know it is the most likely of all possible "Natures", specifically by doing this with relations science has found out.

If you can't do that, then you simply have no evidence for your claim.

No, it's worse. One can actually show the probability God exists is ZERO!! Why? Because one can fit an infinite number of distinct mathematical functions through ANY set of finite data, and humans have only collected finite data throughout their history! Furthermore, there are an infinite number of functions that perfectly predict all data (as long as it's finite) to be gathered in the future such that NO possible distinction in terms of accuracy among those functions could EVER be made by humans.

Sure, at least one of those functions could include some catch-all variable you can label as God, but an infinite number will not (the form of the function could vary in an infinite number of ways).

That proves the probability God exists is ZERO! Which of course doesn't imply God doesn't exist. I mean the probability of choosing the number 5 from the set of all integers is zero, but it can happen.

You however claimed there are "mathematically better odds" a God exists.

I think you have no clue what you're talking about (if you could prove that, it's worth more than a Nobel Prize). But, please, just in the infinitesmally unlikely case you do, please show us this calculation (and you HAVE to show the calculation to provide credence to your claim since otherwise you have nothing to rebut the calculation I gave the probability God exists is zero!)

God exists and there is proof. It is man. What definition do you give God. The ability to create life? We can create life in test tubes. Ask Dolly the sheep. The ability to manipulate subatomic matter? We can creat mini-suns by splitting atoms. Granted, we are a poor replacement for the Gods that exist in the ancient religions. We are like an infant God, still stumbling around but a God nonetheless. I think that is thwe true underlying hatred that science has for God. For the scientist wants to be God and simply doesn't want to have the competition that a creator would foster

I always laugh when I hear a defender of science demand that God be proven to him using his language. Science can't prove why the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate yet we are all supposed to accept their theories without question yet how often do they return the favor. They cant mathematically explain what existed before the big bang or even the first second of the big bang but yet we are supposed to believe their religous explanation that existence and reality arose with no purpose out of one single atom and yet propose to them that perhaps a being manipulated that atom for some mysterious purpose and they go ballistic. Give me proof!

You state that it is ironic that science explains nature but science came from religion. Now that's truly ironic isn't it. Astronomy, medicine, mathematics all came from the followers of God. Ironic it is.

The mathematical formula for proving God's existence comes from the mathematical formula your religion gives for all the factors that had to be perfect for life on earth to come to being. Those odds are 10 to a power so big it can't be calculated. This is the myth your religion wants human beings to believe in. Blind luck. Here is a number for you

The scientific odds of even one left-sided amino acid forming by chance is 10 to the 123rd power. In other words 1 chance in 10 followed by 123 zeros. i.e. 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

God exists mathematically for this one simple reason. The odds of us existing without him are incalculable. There is no number or formula you can come up with that will make human life a probability after a big bang. It is statistically impossible to come up with a workable number that can predict the evolution of man from the big bang.

God exists physically because we conceived of him. Not through mathematics but through instinct. No animal (en masse)on this planet suffers from dillusions of reality so why would man? Your theory accuses the masses of being delusional but perhaps it's just you and your love of mathematical formulas

ckb2001

06-25-2007, 12:53 AM

God exists and there is proof. It is man. What definition do you give God. The ability to create life? We can create life in test tubes. Ask Dolly the sheep. The ability to manipulate subatomic matter? We can creat mini-suns by splitting atoms. Granted, we are a poor replacement for the Gods that exist in the ancient religions. We are like an infant God, still stumbling around but a God nonetheless. I think that is thwe true underlying hatred that science has for God. For the scientist wants to be God and simply doesn't want to have the competition that a creator would foster

I always laugh when I hear a defender of science demand that God be proven to him using his language. Science can't prove why the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate yet we are all supposed to accept their theories without question yet how often do they return the favor. They cant mathematically explain what existed before the big bang or even the first second of the big bang but yet we are supposed to believe their religous explanation that existence and reality arose with no purpose out of one single atom and yet propose to them that perhaps a being manipulated that atom for some mysterious purpose and they go ballistic. Give me proof!

Let me first address the first paragraph. There are three things to address:

1) X proves Y means that there is a logical deduction from X to give you Y without making any further assumptions.

What kind of statement is "God exists and there is proof. It is man"???

That because man exists therefore there must be a God? That's simply illogical thinking because an infinite number of possibilities are consistent with "man exists". You haven't shown "God doesn't exist" is inconsistent with that.

So, your argument up till that point is simply illogical.

2) Now, the question you ask: "What definition do you give God" is a good one, but keep in mind that since YOU are claiming there is proof of that, the onus falls on you to actually define it and show whatever data constitutes a proof of its existence.

For what I said, I don't need a full definition. I just need to define a property God has that's unique to him, such as omniscience. So, one of the models I spoke of could contain a variable that can retrieve information from any other entities in the system without losing any information (there's a measure of information too, called entropy). Thus, using such a unique property, you can show there are an infinite number of distinct models that fit all data gathered and that the probability God exists is zero.

3) To the next point in question, the "hatred" science has for God in your mind. Let's get something straight. What scientists disapprove of is claiming something is true without evidence. That's what you are doing when you say there is proof God exists. That's simply false (as far as we know). And those kinds of claims are rejected by science because there is no evidence of it (of the proof). No need for hatred there, just rejection of the idea because it has no evidence supporting it. That's similar to no evidence for your claim the mathematical odds of God existing are greater than it not existing. Also false with no evidence supporting it.

Now, to the second paragraph. Here, you make more false statements (you're making lots of them so far).

Never will a scientist ask you to accept something without question. THAT is a hallmark of religion, NOT science. So, don't go around making that accusation, again one with NO evidence supporting it.

As far as what existed before the Big Bang, the concept of time didn't exist "before" the Big Bang as far as we know, so the question has yet to be demonstrated to even have a meaning. You can only speak of time after the Big Bang, since space-time was CREATED at that time (again, based on current theories).

And you're again wrong about not being able to explain what happened one second after the Big Bang. That is mostly understood (though there are some uncertainties of course). It's the time from the Big Bang to about a millionth of a second after that where a great amount of uncertainty remains.

And none of these explanations are "religious". That's total bull. There are various theories, all in competition with each other, and all testable (certainly in principle, and almost all in practice). Whichever theory best fits the data is the one accepted. That's certainly different from a "religious" explanation which offers NO calculation of how accurate the claim is and specifically tells you to believe in that claim on faith alone!!

So your final "give me proof" is misguided. That's something a mathematician can give for consistencies among various concepts (regardless of how accurate they are), but no scientist that makes a claim about nature could give you BECAUSE they do NOT ask you to consider it as "truth without possibility of question" UNLIKE religion!!

But, in mathematics, some things can be proven, and you can prove that through any finite data points an infinite number of distinct functions can be fitted AND that therefore any function with the assumption God exists can only have a probability of zero of being true, at least given all data we've obtained so far. Prove that wrong!

Well, I think it's VERY clear by now that you're just making claims without having a clue about their accuracy. Whether what I wrote will change the willingness to make such claims I don't know. But, this is still worth writing.

adamprez2003

06-25-2007, 01:06 AM

[quote=ckb2001;1062162269]Let me first address the first paragraph. There are three things to address:

1)
What kind of statement is "God exists and there is proof. It is man"???

That because man exists therefore there must be a God? That's simply illogical thinking because an infinite number of possibilities are consistent with "man exists". You haven't shown "God doesn't exist" is inconsistent with that.

So, your argument up till that point is simply illogical.

quote]

You misconstrued the statement. Man is a mini-God given that he can create life, manipulate matter and a number of other things. Therefore since we have evolved into mini-Gods, our existence proves that we exist. Now the question is does a mini-god have a god whio created him

adamprez2003

06-25-2007, 01:10 AM

[quote=ckb2001;1062162269]Let me first address the first paragraph. There are three things to address:

1) X proves Y means that there is a logical deduction from X to give you Y without making any further assumptions.

What kind of statement is "God exists and there is proof. It is man"???

That because man exists therefore there must be a God? That's simply illogical thinking because an infinite number of possibilities are consistent with "man exists". You haven't shown "God doesn't exist" is inconsistent with that.

So, your argument up till that point is simply illogical.

2) Now, the question you ask: "What definition do you give God" is a good one, but keep in mind that since YOU are claiming there is proof of that, the onus falls on you to actually define it and show whatever data constitutes a proof of its existence.

For what I said, I don't need a full definition. I just need to define a property God has that's unique to him, such as omniscience. So, one of the models I spoke of could contain a variable that can retrieve information from any other entities in the system without losing any information (there's a measure of information too, called entropy). Thus, using such a unique property, you can show there are an infinite number of distinct models that fit all data gathered and that the probability God exists is zero.

quote]

God from the earliest religions to the modern ones has one defining characteristic that binds them all together. He is the creator of man. Find a mathematical model that contains all the variables you need to calculate the probability that a being created man and not randomness

adamprez2003

06-25-2007, 01:21 AM

3) To the next point in question, the "hatred" science has for God in your mind. Let's get something straight. What scientists disapprove of is claiming something is true without evidence. That's what you are doing when you say there is proof God exists. That's simply false (as far as we know). And those kinds of claims are rejected by science because there is no evidence of it (of the proof). No need for hatred there, just rejection of the idea because it has no evidence supporting it. That's similar to no evidence for your claim the mathematical odds of God existing are greater than it not existing. Also false with no evidence supporting it.

That is a laughable quote. Science changes its "proof" constantly. What is true today was false yesterday and will be false tomorrow. You can fall back on the argument that they are merely theories but then most of the interesting science that seeks out the origin of the universe is based on theory. If science really wanted "proof" it would lay silent on the origin of the universe because as of now it knows far to little. But then science doesnt need evidence or proof to promulgate its theories. Remeber how the universe was supposed to collapse back on itself? What happened to that? Ah yes just a theory. And of course it was presented to the public as just a theory

ckb2001

06-25-2007, 01:28 AM

You state that it is ironic that science explains nature but science came from religion. Now that's truly ironic isn't it. Astronomy, medicine, mathematics all came from the followers of God. Ironic it is.

The mathematical formula for proving God's existence comes from the mathematical formula your religion gives for all the factors that had to be perfect for life on earth to come to being. Those odds are 10 to a power so big it can't be calculated. This is the myth your religion wants human beings to believe in. Blind luck. Here is a number for you

The scientific odds of even one left-sided amino acid forming by chance is 10 to the 123rd power. In other words 1 chance in 10 followed by 123 zeros. i.e. 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

I see you added some more stuff after I quoted what you originally wrote.

OK, to the first paragraph, science is replacing religion. Religion is simply an outdated way of trying to understand the world, at least where science can demonstrate they can solve problems more effectively. This technology you see around you is the result of exactly that method of thinking that replaced religious thought BECAUSE religion is useless in comparison for solving the kinds of problems science has shown they can solve.

So, it doesn't matter what the history is. It matters what the best known methods are.

And science is NOT a religion, so stop referring to it as such. Every religion has one thing in common: the willingness to accept something on faith ALONE with NO possibility for questioning its validity. Science NEVER does that.

And as far as the amino acid claim, I think you're misquoting whichever Creationist website you're getting that statement from. I mean the probability of obtaining a left-handed amino acid is 1/2.

I'd bet whatever website you're getting it from is really talking about the probability a protein (which is made from only left-handed amino acids) can form.

That's a common argument I've heard from religious guys that quote Creationist websites. Alas, the people who write those websites rely on the reader's ignorance to get them to believe in what they write.

So, assuming that's what they were referring to (you might try providing a link so I can see THEIR wording), it's not hard to rebut. First of all, whatever that probability is, it does NOT provide ANY evidence of a God, for exactly the reasons I gave earlier - there are an infinite number of distinct ways of predicting that.

But, more importantly, it's misrepresentation of evolutionary theory!! They are just assuming you go from simple atoms/molecules to a protein. So, what's the probability of that? Well, it's VERY small of course.

But the modern theory of abiogenesis does NOT work that way. They don't list one starting state (simple atoms/molecules) and one final state (a protein) and ask what the probability of getting from one to the other is! No, there are many intermediate steps where getting from each step to the next doesn't require an unrealistic probability of occurrence. So, for the actual calculation, what's important is not the probability of something occurring in simultaneous trials, but in sequential trials. The calculations they made have really NOTHING to do with the actual theory of abiogenesis.

That's the first thing left out (I mean the theories are data-driven, meaning you can formulate hypotheses with such intermediate steps). The next thing they leave out is that it is NOT the probability ONE such protein exists that's important, since a HUGE number of possible proteins are acceptable. That drastically reduces any probability calculation. But, I bet your Creationist website fails to mention that. Because if they did, they result makes no sense!! They of course deliberately leave stuff like that out because they NEED ignorant people for them to make their arguments.

Finally, keep in mind that what seems like a HUGE number (even after taking the above into account) doesn't necessarily make it unrealistic like will evolve through natural selection. I mean how many molecules are there on this planet? And how many times can a trial occur in even one second? (molecules interact very quickly). In billions of years, even HUGE numbers (though they're MUCH smaller than what you quoted) are even manageable.

Well, no point in going into details until you show their calculation.

Either way, it's a lame attempt at trying to win an argument by just copy/pasting without having a clue how the calculation was made (otherwise, you wouldn't have posted that).

ckb2001

06-25-2007, 01:31 AM

You misconstrued the statement. Man is a mini-God given that he can create life, manipulate matter and a number of other things. Therefore since we have evolved into mini-Gods, our existence proves that we exist. Now the question is does a mini-god have a god whio created him

The assumption man is a mini-God has no evidence supporting it. I mean start with what your definition is of "mini-God" to begin with. How are you defining that? Either way, you can't ASSUME what you want to prove is true and then say "AHA, I can prove what I set out to prove now".

No, there is no known evidence FOR the existence of a God so far in human history (meaning it increases the likelihood of God's existence in a demonstrable way). What you stated is simply illogical.

ckb2001

06-25-2007, 01:34 AM

God from the earliest religions to the modern ones has one defining characteristic that binds them all together. He is the creator of man. Find a mathematical model that contains all the variables you need to calculate the probability that a being created man and not randomness

First of all, not all Gods had that characteristic in the past. Note that relatively few religions in the ancient world were monotheistic.

Either way, I already calculated the probability of God's existence for you: zero. And I gave the argument for that. Read it again and tell me what you don't understand so I don't have to repeat myself. That's the mathematical model you're asking for.

Majpain

06-25-2007, 01:38 AM

You don't need the fear of an invisible man setting you on fire to get you to act right. Deep down inside, the reason that people who act morally do so is not because of fear of God, it's because they know their actions will make the world a better and easier place to live in. What's wrong with believing in mankind? Why does someone need to believe in an invisible being that insists on blind faith and constant worship, and one who also threatens you with death if you don't comply?

I'm sorry but the world would be **** if people didn't believe in a higher up. Partly because no one would regret their actions they would just live a life to please themselves.

Thats just my IMO. I don't want to start a HUGE debate here.

ckb2001

06-25-2007, 01:38 AM

That is a laughable quote. Science changes its "proof" constantly. What is true today was false yesterday and will be false tomorrow. You can fall back on the argument that they are merely theories but then most of the interesting science that seeks out the origin of the universe is based on theory. If science really wanted "proof" it would lay silent on the origin of the universe because as of now it knows far to little. But then science doesnt need evidence or proof to promulgate its theories. Remeber how the universe was supposed to collapse back on itself? What happened to that? Ah yes just a theory. And of course it was presented to the public as just a theory

??

You accused science of being a religion, that is, asking people to accept their arguments on faith. NO scientist does that!!!

And every theory in science (with a few notable exceptions) works only in a majority of cases it is supposed to work in. So, from the outset, the question is what is the accuracy of the model/theory? Thus, as new data is obtained, old theories are discarded in favor of new ones. But, at no time does science assume they have an argument where NO doubt remains! That's a misunderstanding you and others in the religious community often have. You try to paint science as religion, and there's no basis for that.

ckb2001

06-25-2007, 01:42 AM

I'm sorry but the world would be **** if people didn't believe in a higher up. Partly because no one would regret their actions they would just live a life to please themselves.

Thats just my IMO. I don't want to start a HUGE debate here.

Keeping the response simple, note that there are quite a few countries where most people don't believe in God. Take Japan for example. Fewer than 10 percent believe in God in Japan:
http://humaniststudies.org/enews/index.html?id=219&article=7

And Japan has one of the smallest crime rates among industrial countries in the world. It also has one of the lowest rates of teen pregnancy.

So, no the world would be fine even if people didn't believe in a higher up.

adamprez2003

06-25-2007, 01:46 AM

will finish up tomorrow. Keep getting logged out and its getting late. have a good one

DonShula84

06-25-2007, 02:52 AM

I'm sorry but the world would be **** if people didn't believe in a higher up. Partly because no one would regret their actions they would just live a life to please themselves.

Thats just my IMO. I don't want to start a HUGE debate here.

I dont know I look at atheist or others who arent religious and see them living good decent lives to know that people wouldnt be out only for themselves w/ out a God? I mean they still have families they'd care for, or their communities/nation etc. Plus, people still have laws they have to answer to. It isnt like fear of hell is keeping people in line, it's jail and social norms.

Just saw ck's post. The Japan example is a good one imo.

Eshlemon

06-25-2007, 03:08 AM

Keeping the response simple, note that there are quite a few countries where most people don't believe in God. Take Japan for example. Fewer than 10 percent believe in God in Japan:
http://humaniststudies.org/enews/index.html?id=219&article=7

And Japan has one of the smallest crime rates among industrial countries in the world. It also has one of the lowest rates of teen pregnancy.

So, no the world would be fine even if people didn't believe in a higher up.

Japan has one of the lowest crime rates because they are homogeneous country (99% Japanese). Has nothing to do with 84% believing in religions (mostly Shinto) other than a "God" or 80% believing in evolution.

Pagan

06-25-2007, 07:27 AM

Japan has one of the lowest crime rates because they are homogeneous country (99% Japanese). Has nothing to do with 84% believing in religions (mostly Shinto) other than a "God" or 80% believing in evolution.
That doesn't make sense to me, wouldn't the fact that there's so many people present a greater chance for crime to be higher?

Eshlemon

06-25-2007, 01:59 PM

That doesn't make sense to me, wouldn't the fact that there's so many people present a greater chance for crime to be higher?

There's probably some correlation to population density and conflict. But feel the the major point in comparisons of crime rates in Japan to any other of the similir polital-economic countries is their lower diversity amoung the population (or in Japan's case no diversity). Which no offense to Japan and their wonderful Japenese culture, to me seems very boring.

Quelonio

06-25-2007, 02:27 PM

There's probably some correlation to population density and conflict. But feel the the major point in comparisons of crime rates in Japan to any other of the similir polital-economic countries is their lower diversity amoung the population (or in Japan's case no diversity). Which no offense to Japan and their wonderful Japenese culture, to me seems very boring.

So what you are saying is that the presence of people of different racial status makes a country more akin to having problems???

That is not true, for the most part Mexico is a place lacking diversity as mostly there are only Mexicans, yet in terms of crime we have a huge problem there. And a lot of confrontations amongst people of different social class.

Eshlemon

06-25-2007, 02:59 PM

So what you are saying is that the presence of people of different racial status makes a country more akin to having problems???

That is not true, for the most part Mexico is a place lacking diversity as mostly there are only Mexicans, yet in terms of crime we have a huge problem there. And a lot of confrontations amongst people of different social class.

Dude, the article was comparing similar economic/political industrial nations. Unfortunately Mexico isn't in as an advantageos situation economicly as the countries in the article that comparisons were being made. But just as Mexico wasn't included because it's apples to oranges comparable for economic reasons, Japan is apple to oranges because of the complete lack of population diversity. It's saying those country's are using comparable grills and steaks but coming out with very different tasting steaks, but failing to mention all the different spices and any other additional ingredients.

ckb2001

06-25-2007, 03:57 PM

Japan has one of the lowest crime rates because they are homogeneous country (99% Japanese). Has nothing to do with 84% believing in religions (mostly Shinto) other than a "God" or 80% believing in evolution.

Only when you look at official statistics do the Japanese look religious with Shinto and Buddhism. Specifically, all that means is they practice two rituals, one at weddings and one at funerals that come from those two religions.

The GREAT majority of Japanese are NOT religious if you examine their beliefs.

And it's very difficult to determine how influential a religious belief is. That thread on religious identification showed some results. But, keep in mind that not only do you not see Buddhists engage in the kind of religious wars at similar frequencies as Christians or Muslims in the past/present have (Celtkin said that), but that monotheistic religions in general have been associated with more religion-based wars. Some suggest (naturally these are all hypotheses) this has to do with the absoluteness of "right" and "wrong" that is more prevalent in monotheistic religions. If my history is right, it started with Zoroastrianism in what is today Iran.

Eshlemon

06-25-2007, 05:26 PM

Only when you look at official statistics do the Japanese look religious with Shinto and Buddhism. Specifically, all that means is they practice two rituals, one at weddings and one at funerals that come from those two religions.

The GREAT majority of Japanese are NOT religious if you examine their beliefs.

And it's very difficult to determine how influential a religious belief is. That thread on religious identification showed some results. But, keep in mind that not only do you not see Buddhists engage in the kind of religious wars at similar frequencies as Christians or Muslims in the past/present have (Celtkin said that), but that monotheistic religions in general have been associated with more religion-based wars. Some suggest (naturally these are all hypotheses) this has to do with the absoluteness of "right" and "wrong" that is more prevalent in monotheistic religions. If my history is right, it started with Zoroastrianism in what is today Iran.

Japan isn't a good example of Buddhists with wars, from their fuedal wars to WW2. There was a buddist book written about Japan & Buddhism called "Zen at War". You could say Japanese civilization corrupted Buddhism, but you could say that about civiliizations and all beliefs. Also, because someone calls a war 'a just war' as I think it's called in Sri Lanka buddhism instead of the muslims 'holy war' doesn't differentiate it as a religious wars.

But then how do you ever differenate between clashes of civilizations and clashes of religions? If you remove all the various religions whether monotheistic, multitheistic, etc. from Europe & the Near East for the last thousands of years, does anyone honestly believe this ends the vast majority if not all wars going back to the Greco-Persian Wars and beyond? Religion was more than it is today, it was an integral idelogical component of society and politics. I think it's rather self-righeous for us to believe past religous wars would not be have been replaced with other ideological non-secular differences in civilizations.

Plus there's always the coveat, we really have no way of knowing until everybody thinks alike to find out if we fight because of our differences or just cause we like to fight.

Quelonio

06-25-2007, 05:35 PM

I think we just misplaced him...

Eshlemon

06-25-2007, 05:48 PM

I think we just misplaced him...

:lol:Then we'll start looking for Him and as the oxymoron goes, He'll turn up "in the the last place we looked". Or Her if it's Pagan's Goddess.

ckb2001

06-25-2007, 05:59 PM

Japan isn't a good example of Buddhists with wars, from their fuedal wars to WW2. There was a buddist book written about Japan & Buddhism called "Zen at War". You could say Japanese civilization corrupted Buddhism, but you could say that about civiliizations and all beliefs. Also, because someone calls a war 'a just war' as I think it's called in Sri Lanka buddhism instead of the muslims 'holy war' doesn't differentiate it as a religious wars.

But then how do you ever differenate between clashes of civilizations and clashes of religions? If you remove all the various religions whether monotheistic, multitheistic, etc. from Europe & the Near East for the last thousands of years, does anyone honestly believe this ends the vast majority if not all wars going back to the Greco-Persian Wars and beyond? Religion was more than it is today, it was an integral idelogical component of society and politics. I think it's rather self-righeous for us to believe past religous wars would not be have been replaced with other ideological non-secular differences in civilizations.

Plus there's always the coveat, we really have no way of knowing until everybody thinks alike to find out if we fight because of our differences or just cause we like to fight.

Well, almost none of the wars fought within Japan up until Tokugawa could be considered religious wars. Maybe the one time they executed those who believed in Christianity in the early 1600's, but that's an exception. You'll find it hard pressed to argue those wars you speak of were in the name of Buddha or something like that.

The primary motivation was increase in power. That's why that War Audit tried to differentiate between cases where the primary motivations were religion and where the primary motivations were not.

By the way, it's interesting to note the Japanese today are more secular than during their militaristic period. Not that this has much to do with religion per se - the common explanation is the devastation after WW2 was so great it's still a form of cultural trauma in the public consciousness, though a new generation is growing more assertive now.

So sure it's difficult to determine what the exact influence religion has had on warfare is, but it's much easier to argue what Islam did in the first century of its rise and what Christianity did during the Crusades finds no parallel among Buddhists if we are talking about things on a similar scale.

Eshlemon

06-25-2007, 06:39 PM

Well, almost none of the wars fought within Japan up until Tokugawa could be considered religious wars. Maybe the one time they executed those who believed in Christianity in the early 1600's, but that's an exception. You'll find it hard pressed to argue those wars you speak of were in the name of Buddha or something like that.

The primary motivation was increase in power. That's why that War Audit tried to differentiate between cases where the primary motivations were religion and where the primary motivations were not.

By the way, it's interesting to note the Japanese today are more secular than during their militaristic period. Not that this has much to do with religion per se - the common explanation is the devastation after WW2 was so great it's still a form of cultural trauma in the public consciousness, though a new generation is growing more assertive now.

So sure it's difficult to determine what the exact influence religion has had on warfare is, but it's much easier to argue what Islam did in the first century of its rise and what Christianity did during the Crusades finds no parallel among Buddhists if we are talking about things on a similar scale.

Japan's psyche is unique.

I really don't know how a historical scale could be made...currently the top 2 are 2.1 billion Christians and 1.3 billion Muslims, then Buddhists #6 at 376 million according to Wikipedia. What could there historical numbers have been? Plus any scale would have include not only the numbers, but how many were actually a majority represtentation and influence of civilizations-states.

ckb2001

06-25-2007, 06:46 PM

Japan's psyche is unique.

I really don't know how a historical scale could be made...currently the top 2 are 2.1 billion Christians and 1.3 billion Muslims, then Buddhists #6 at 376 million according to Wikipedia. What could there historical numbers have been? Plus any scale would have include not only the numbers, but how many were actually a majority represtentation and influence of civilizations-states.

About half the world's population was in Eastern and Southern Asia for much of human history, so where Buddhism and Hinduism were for long periods of time the dominant religions.

Here's one map of such a distribution in the year 1500:
http://www.worldmapper.org/posters/worldmapper_map8_ver5.pdf

Note it says:

"Worldwide population distribution in 1500 was roughly similar to that in year 1, despite the numbers almost doubling over this period."
---------------------

So, you can really look just at the history of China for comparison (maybe had 1/4 of the world's population at many times in history) and see how many conflicts are best described as religiously motivated. It's not easy to give too many examples.

Eshlemon

06-26-2007, 01:58 PM

About half the world's population was in Eastern and Southern Asia for much of human history, so where Buddhism and Hinduism were for long periods of time the dominant religions.

Here's one map of such a distribution in the year 1500:
http://www.worldmapper.org/posters/worldmapper_map8_ver5.pdf

Note it says:

"Worldwide population distribution in 1500 was roughly similar to that in year 1, despite the numbers almost doubling over this period."
---------------------

So, you can really look just at the history of China for comparison (maybe had 1/4 of the world's population at many times in history) and see how many conflicts are best described as religiously motivated. It's not easy to give too many examples.

I am ignorant of Chinese history. But after a quick reveiw, the Chinese appear to fight as many wars than those in the West despite them not being labeled religious conflicts and having religions not monotheistic. Just the numbers involved, which shouldn't be surprised me considering the population, are staggering. Warlords fighting with armies equal to those of the Roman or Persian Empires, around 600 AD invasion of S.Korea with what may have been the first multi-million man march (3-5 million army)...that was defeated, river wars involving 50,000 boats, the military technology, and the various "Art of War"-type philosophies stood out.

As far as distictly religious conflicts, only one of significance that stood out began in the 8th century against Buddhism. What changed for Buddhism which had been co-existing with Taoism and Confucionism for centuries? There appear to be many reasons that are mentioned: hardline taoist emporerers consolidating power, introduction of opium in 7th & 8th century by Arabs (buddhism associated with "Near West"), and the growing influence of buddhism amoung traditional conflicting border states such as Korea and more importantly Mongolia.

But all that "research" over a day still hasn't changed the fact I am still woefully ignorant of Chinese history. And will remain so despite interest, I just don't have the time required to invest in the vast Chinese history.

ckb2001

06-26-2007, 03:58 PM

I am ignorant of Chinese history. But after a quick reveiw, the Chinese appear to fight as many wars than those in the West despite them not being labeled religious conflicts and having religions not monotheistic. Just the numbers involved, which shouldn't be surprised me considering the population, are staggering. Warlords fighting with armies equal to those of the Roman or Persian Empires, around 600 AD invasion of S.Korea with what may have been the first multi-million man march (3-5 million army)...that was defeated, river wars involving 50,000 boats, the military technology, and the various "Art of War"-type philosophies stood out.

As far as distictly religious conflicts, only one of significance that stood out began in the 8th century against Buddhism. What changed for Buddhism which had been co-existing with Taoism and Confucionism for centuries? There appear to be many reasons that are mentioned: hardline taoist emporerers consolidating power, introduction of opium in 7th & 8th century by Arabs (buddhism associated with "Near West"), and the growing influence of buddhism amoung traditional conflicting border states such as Korea and more importantly Mongolia.

But all that "research" over a day still hasn't changed the fact I am still woefully ignorant of Chinese history. And will remain so despite interest, I just don't have the time required to invest in the vast Chinese history.

Well, first of all I'm glad you actually did some research. Debates here would be better if everyone did that.

However, I've heard from more than one historian that at least during periods where China was strong, a relatively peaceful East Asia was the norm. Apparently, this was much rarer in the West.

Here's one article on this:
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/international_security/v027/27.4kang.html

"Historically, it has been Chinese weakness that has led to chaos in Asia. When China has been strong and stable, order has been preserved. East Asian regional relations have historically been hierarchic, more peaceful, and more stable than those in the West. Until the intrusion of the Western powers in the nineteenth century, East Asian interstate relations were remarkably stable, punctuated only occasionally by conflict between countries. The system was based on Chinese military and economic power but was reinforced through centuries of cultural exchange, and the units in the system were sovereign states that had political control over recognized geographic areas.East Asian international relations emphasized formal hierarchy among nations while allowing considerable informal equality. With China as the dominant state and surrounding countries as peripheral or secondary states, as long as hierarchy was observed there was little need for interstate war. This contrasts sharply with the Western tradition of international relations, which has consisted of formal equality between nation-states, informal hierarchy, and near-constant interstate conflict."
-----------------------

Though this one article doesn't go into it, there is some debate about whether that was just the result of power politics or also religion, such as Confucian ideals, etc... In any case, it MAY be that East Asia prior to the late 19th century, where Western mentality was finally adopted by the masses (first by the Japanese), was generally more peaceful, at least on average.

Of course, I've heard some counterarguments too, but it is worth noting quite a many professors of history have expressed similar sentiments.

Eshlemon

06-26-2007, 04:44 PM

Well, first of all I'm glad you actually did some research. Debates here would be better if everyone did that.

However, I've heard from more than one historian that at least during periods where China was strong, a relatively peaceful East Asia was the norm. Apparently, this was much rarer in the West.

Here's one article on this:
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/international_security/v027/27.4kang.html

"Historically, it has been Chinese weakness that has led to chaos in Asia. When China has been strong and stable, order has been preserved. East Asian regional relations have historically been hierarchic, more peaceful, and more stable than those in the West. Until the intrusion of the Western powers in the nineteenth century, East Asian interstate relations were remarkably stable, punctuated only occasionally by conflict between countries. The system was based on Chinese military and economic power but was reinforced through centuries of cultural exchange, and the units in the system were sovereign states that had political control over recognized geographic areas.East Asian international relations emphasized formal hierarchy among nations while allowing considerable informal equality. With China as the dominant state and surrounding countries as peripheral or secondary states, as long as hierarchy was observed there was little need for interstate war. This contrasts sharply with the Western tradition of international relations, which has consisted of formal equality between nation-states, informal hierarchy, and near-constant interstate conflict."
-----------------------

Though this one article doesn't go into it, there is some debate about whether that was just the result of power politics or also religion, such as Confucian ideals, etc... In any case, it MAY be that East Asia prior to the late 19th century, where Western mentality was finally adopted by the masses (first by the Japanese), was generally more peaceful, at least on average.

Of course, I've heard some counterarguments too, but it is worth noting quite a many professors of history have expressed similar sentiments.

Is this any different than "Pax Romana"? When a strong and succesfull leadership of the empire is in control, there isn't intrastate warfare. When there isn't, China did not have intrastate warfare? At least one instance I remember from my breifings, the revolts against the dynasty that lead those horribly unnseccssful wars against Korea.

And of course there's also my opinion regarding the lack of diversity with the homogeneous Japanese and crime above. Except replace China are Chinese in a military instead of crime comparisons of the Roman Empire's and the Europe/Near Easts Italians, Greeks Franks, Germans, Persians, Arabs, and the hundreds I've left out.

ckb2001

06-26-2007, 04:51 PM

Is this any different than "Pax Romana"? When a strong and succesfull leadership of the empire is in control, there isn't intrastate warfare. When there isn't, China did not have intrastate warfare? At least one instance I remember from my breifings, the revolts against the dynasty that lead those horribly unnseccssful wars against Korea.

And of course there's also my opinion regarding the lack of diversity with the homogeneous Japanese and crime above. Except replace China are Chinese in a military instead of crime comparisons of the Roman Empire's and the Europe/Near Easts Italians, Greeks Franks, Germans, Persians, Arabs, and the hundreds I've left out.

Yeah, they're actually talking about inter-state warfare, not just intrastate.

Eshlemon

06-26-2007, 05:09 PM

Yeah, they're actually talking about inter-state warfare, not just intrastate.

Well the interstate arguement of "Pax China" can also be applied to Pax Romana. The heirchy's in place, there's China and Rome and everybody else. When Rome and China are on the top of there games, there's nobody to fight with besides defending the empire against barbarian raiders. Which ironicly, both states also built walls to protect against, and which both eventually led to the ends of 2 of the empires.

ckb2001

06-26-2007, 05:34 PM

Well the interstate arguement of "Pax China" can also be applied to Pax Romana. The heirchy's in place, there's China and Rome and everybody else. When Rome and China are on the top of there games, there's nobody to fight with besides defending the empire against barbarian raiders. Which ironicly, both states also built walls to protect against, and which both eventually led to the ends of 2 of the empires.

Yeah, I understand. I'm just saying there are historians that claim historically East Asia has been more peaceful. Maybe it's just because of those Chinese dynasties with the same dynamics of power politics as existed in Rome (I'd probably think this too, since they are all humans) or maybe there are cultural differences that led to this.

If I had to argue against what you said above, I'd probably say you didn't see the same kind of hierarchical relationships in Rome as you did in China, where Japan, Korea, etc.. were more like independent vassal states instead of enemies yet to be conquered. Some might try to argue something from Confucian mentality might have contributed to that, but I don't know.

Anyway, it is an interesting question. I'm just pointing out there are historians that have claimed East Asia on average saw less warfare historically than other places. Of course, that doesn't mean the dynamics that lead to war were any different.

Eshlemon

06-26-2007, 05:49 PM

Yeah, I understand. I'm just saying there are historians that claim historically East Asia has been more peaceful. Maybe it's just because of those Chinese dynasties with the same dynamics of power politics as existed in Rome (I'd probably think this too, since they are all humans) or maybe there are cultural differences that led to this.

If I had to argue against what you said above, I'd probably say you didn't see the same kind of hierarchical relationships in Rome as you did in China, where Japan, Korea, etc.. were more like independent vassal states instead of enemies yet to be conquered. Some might try to argue something from Confucian mentality might have contributed to that, but I don't know.

Anyway, it is an interesting question. I'm just pointing out there are historians that have claimed East Asia on average saw less warfare historically than other places. Of course, that doesn't mean the dynamics that lead to war were any different.

I know, but my thoughts continue to come back to that articles statement:

This contrasts sharply with the Western tradition of international relations, which has consisted of formal equality between nation-states, informal hierarchy, and near-constant interstate conflict."

China, as in Pax Romana times, there was no equality between other nation-states and those empires. Guess equality=war...j/k don't want to go there. Fun debate as always ckb.:)

adamprez2003

06-27-2007, 10:59 PM

Now, to the second paragraph. Here, you make more false statements (you're making lots of them so far).

Never will a scientist ask you to accept something without question. THAT is a hallmark of religion, NOT science. So, don't go around making that accusation, again one with NO evidence supporting it.

As far as what existed before the Big Bang, the concept of time didn't exist "before" the Big Bang as far as we know, so the question has yet to be demonstrated to even have a meaning. You can only speak of time after the Big Bang, since space-time was CREATED at that time (again, based on current theories).

And you're again wrong about not being able to explain what happened one second after the Big Bang. That is mostly understood (though there are some uncertainties of course). It's the time from the Big Bang to about a millionth of a second after that where a great amount of uncertainty remains.

Scientists are just as strident in defending the modern "dogma" of their profession as any religion. Whether its the modern theory of evolution in the twentieth century (which is only now being reconsidered -lol) or the "man is behind global warming" dogma that is being screeched from every ivory tower (yeah the sun getting hotter has nothing to do with it)

As for time existibng now and not before3 the big bang, you might as well have taken that out of the story of creation. Same theory different mumbo jumbo. The concept of time is a man made creation. there is only now. We need to perceive before and after so therefore we constructed the concvept of time. If time truly existed then you could go back in time. The only place where backwards time travel is possible is in overdone mathemtical formulas and science fiction novels.

As for being wrong about not being able to make sense of the bing bang " a second" after the big bang and "one millionth of a second" only when talking to a believer of science. I'm not trying to impress a professor and therefore I'm not about to get particular about my points. Talk about nitpicky

ABrownLamp

06-27-2007, 11:22 PM

Scientists are just as strident in defending the modern "dogma" of their profession as any religion. Whether its the modern theory of evolution in the twentieth century (which is only now being reconsidered -lol) or the "man is behind global warming" dogma that is being screeched from every ivory tower (yeah the sun getting hotter has nothing to do with it)

As for time existibng now and not before3 the big bang, you might as well have taken that out of the story of creation. Same theory different mumbo jumbo. The concept of time is a man made creation. there is only now. We need to perceive before and after so therefore we constructed the concvept of time. If time truly existed then you could go back in time. The only place where backwards time travel is possible is in overdone mathemtical formulas and science fiction novels.

As for being wrong about not being able to make sense of the bing bang " a second" after the big bang and "one millionth of a second" only when talking to a believer of science. I'm not trying to impress a professor and therefore I'm not about to get particular about my points. Talk about nitpicky

Um, exactly what part of evolution is being "reconsidered"? I cant wait to hear this one.

Oh, and what you dont understand is that Venus is hotter than Mercury, even though Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun. The reason for this is, the greenhouse effect. So even if the other planets are getting hotter, or colder, the greenhouse effect will still warm the Earth more than it normally would if we didn't pump all that CO2 into the atmosphere. ooops!

adamprez2003

06-27-2007, 11:39 PM

Um, exactly what part of evolution is being "reconsidered"? I cant wait to hear this one.

Oh, and what you dont understand is that Venus is hotter than Mercury, even though Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun. The reason for this is, the greenhouse effect. So even if the other planets are getting hotter, or colder, the greenhouse effect will still warm the Earth more than it normally would if we didn't pump all that CO2 into the atmosphere. ooops!

read the new york times, that christian rag. read a hundred other articles in differing media saying the same thing. And of course anyone that disagrees with your religous dogma just "doesn't understand" yeah the concept of global warming and co2 is so difficult to understand. forgive us walking monkees

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26essay.html?ref=science

adamprez2003

06-27-2007, 11:50 PM

And you're again wrong about not being able to explain what happened one second after the Big Bang. That is mostly understood (though there are some uncertainties of course). It's the time from the Big Bang to about a millionth of a second after that where a great amount of uncertainty remains.

And none of these explanations are "religious". That's total bull. There are various theories, all in competition with each other, and all testable (certainly in principle, and almost all in practice). Whichever theory best fits the data is the one accepted. That's certainly different from a "religious" explanation which offers NO calculation of how accurate the claim is and specifically tells you to believe in that claim on faith alone!!

So your final "give me proof" is misguided. That's something a mathematician can give for consistencies among various concepts (regardless of how accurate they are), but no scientist that makes a claim about nature could give you BECAUSE they do NOT ask you to consider it as "truth without possibility of question" UNLIKE religion!!

But, in mathematics, some things can be proven, and you can prove that through any finite data points an infinite number of distinct functions can be fitted AND that therefore any function with the assumption God exists can only have a probability of zero of being true, at least given all data we've obtained so far. Prove that wrong!

Well, I think it's VERY clear by now that you're just making claims without having a clue about their accuracy. Whether what I wrote will change the willingness to make such claims I don't know. But, this is still worth writing.

You ramble on about how none of these explanations are religous and then you go into your magical mathematical formula which proves that God doesn't exist. Hallelujah! And on the seventh day math killed God

adamprez2003

06-27-2007, 11:59 PM

I see you added some more stuff after I quoted what you originally wrote.

OK, to the first paragraph, science is replacing religion. Religion is simply an outdated way of trying to understand the world, at least where science can demonstrate they can solve problems more effectively. This technology you see around you is the result of exactly that method of thinking that replaced religious thought BECAUSE religion is useless in comparison for solving the kinds of problems science has shown they can solve.

So, it doesn't matter what the history is. It matters what the best known methods are.

).

Science doesn't replace religion. You mistake science with logic, which has been around since the dawn of man, just as religion has. They coexist in most humans. True some humans are unbalanced and fall into one or the other camps almost exclusively but most have a balance between the two. It's not either/or but rather "and". Logic "and" Religion have lead man to this point in history and will continue to do so until the end. Logic to deduce the surrounding and religion or philosophy to make sense of it. For tens of thousands of years that has been the dance

adamprez2003

06-28-2007, 12:08 AM

[quote=ckb2001;1062162306]

And science is NOT a religion, so stop referring to it as such. Every religion has one thing in common: the willingness to accept something on faith ALONE with NO possibility for questioning its validity. Science NEVER does that.

quote]

Global warming, global freezing (thirty years earlier), Darwin's theory of evolution, the universe would stop expanding and collapse back onto itself theory, dark matter, etc, etc. Same mumbo jumbo spewed out generation after generation and anyone that disagrees "doesn't know" or "is paid for by the corporations" or is just plain ignorant.

adamprez2003

06-28-2007, 12:08 AM

b

ckb2001

06-28-2007, 12:14 AM

Scientists are just as strident in defending the modern "dogma" of their profession as any religion. Whether its the modern theory of evolution in the twentieth century (which is only now being reconsidered -lol) or the "man is behind global warming" dogma that is being screeched from every ivory tower (yeah the sun getting hotter has nothing to do with it)

As for time existibng now and not before3 the big bang, you might as well have taken that out of the story of creation. Same theory different mumbo jumbo. The concept of time is a man made creation. there is only now. We need to perceive before and after so therefore we constructed the concvept of time. If time truly existed then you could go back in time. The only place where backwards time travel is possible is in overdone mathemtical formulas and science fiction novels.

As for being wrong about not being able to make sense of the bing bang " a second" after the big bang and "one millionth of a second" only when talking to a believer of science. I'm not trying to impress a professor and therefore I'm not about to get particular about my points. Talk about nitpicky

More falsehoods.. What is this assertion about "evolution is only now being reconsidered"?? That's just bull! There was greater opposition among scientists to evolutionary theory when it first came out than ever afterwards. As more time went on and more evidence was gathered, it became clear the theory was so accurate you have no serious competition to it today. Today, the questions being asked revolve more around WHICH evolutionary theory is most accurate instead of whether evolution occurred because the evidence for evolution occurring and being responsible for the diversity of life we see today is so overwhelming no scientist really has a good alternative theory to it!

And as far as global warming is concerned, the question isn't whether X or Y is influencing it, the question is "by how much is X or Y influencing average global temperatures?" So, asking about whether the sun getting warmer has something to do with it is irrelevant. Of course there are many influences. The correct question is by how much is any influence affecting average global temperatures on Earth. And not only is the mechanism through which CO2 release adds a net warming effect on the Earth relatively well understood (compared a lot of other things), its effect has been shown constant for the last 420 million years. When you actually calculate with what probability humans are adding a net warming effect through CO2 emissions, it comes out to ~90%. There's a lot of science to back that up, and I've gone through some of that in other threads.

And then you go into illogical nonsense, such as "if time truly existed we could travel back in time". Complete lack of logic and no basis for that argument. We can measure time, and our best physics suggests the time an measured depends on the observer in such a way that traveling back in time is not possible (at least in General Relativity) - it's a deduction from the speed of light being constant from any reference frame.

Oh, and as far as nitpickiness with facts is concerned, it's telling you react that way. You should be happy to be corrected on something like that. Facts are your friends, not your enemy, that is, unless you value something on faith so highly that you're not willing to let facts get in the way. And therein lies the fundamental difference between how scientists defend current dogma and how religious leaders do. At least scientists start off with the assumption they could be wrong. Often, in religion, it's assumed there's NO possibility they could be wrong (such as in claiming God exists). And the other difference is scientists will let Nature decide which theory is correct (through data gathered), whereas in religions you often have this faith-based attack on theories that best fit the data (such as evolution). No, there are significant differences in the way ideas are defended within the two camps.

ckb2001

06-28-2007, 12:18 AM

You ramble on about how none of these explanations are religous and then you go into your magical mathematical formula which proves that God doesn't exist. Hallelujah! And on the seventh day math killed God

Can't you read carefully before making totally baseless accusations, thinking you're right when your statements only show you can't comprehend the argument I'm making? WHERE did I show God doesn't exist? I showed its probability of existence is zero. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The analogy of choosing the number 5 from the set of all integers is a good one. Think first, then accuse!

adamprez2003

06-28-2007, 12:21 AM

And as far as the amino acid claim, I think you're misquoting whichever Creationist website you're getting that statement from. I mean the probability of obtaining a left-handed amino acid is 1/2.

I'd bet whatever website you're getting it from is really talking about the probability a protein (which is made from only left-handed amino acids) can form.

That's a common argument I've heard from religious guys that quote Creationist websites. Alas, the people who write those websites rely on the reader's ignorance to get them to believe in what they write.

So, assuming that's what they were referring to (you might try providing a link so I can see THEIR wording), it's not hard to rebut. First of all, whatever that probability is, it does NOT provide ANY evidence of a God, for exactly the reasons I gave earlier - there are an infinite number of distinct ways of predicting that.

But, more importantly, it's misrepresentation of evolutionary theory!! They are just assuming you go from simple atoms/molecules to a protein. So, what's the probability of that? Well, it's VERY small of course.

But the modern theory of abiogenesis does NOT work that way. They don't list one starting state (simple atoms/molecules) and one final state (a protein) and ask what the probability of getting from one to the other is! No, there are many intermediate steps where getting from each step to the next doesn't require an unrealistic probability of occurrence. So, for the actual calculation, what's important is not the probability of something occurring in simultaneous trials, but in sequential trials. The calculations they made have really NOTHING to do with the actual theory of abiogenesis.

That's the first thing left out (I mean the theories are data-driven, meaning you can formulate hypotheses with such intermediate steps). The next thing they leave out is that it is NOT the probability ONE such protein exists that's important, since a HUGE number of possible proteins are acceptable. That drastically reduces any probability calculation. But, I bet your Creationist website fails to mention that. Because if they did, they result makes no sense!! They of course deliberately leave stuff like that out because they NEED ignorant people for them to make their arguments.

Finally, keep in mind that what seems like a HUGE number (even after taking the above into account) doesn't necessarily make it unrealistic like will evolve through natural selection. I mean how many molecules are there on this planet? And how many times can a trial occur in even one second? (molecules interact very quickly). In billions of years, even HUGE numbers (though they're MUCH smaller than what you quoted) are even manageable.

Well, no point in going into details until you show their calculation.

Either way, it's a lame attempt at trying to win an argument by just copy/pasting without having a clue how the calculation was made (otherwise, you wouldn't have posted that).

Once again you get stuck in the minutia. The calculation wasn't based simply on the amino acid but rather what it took to get to amino acid stage. Divide 1/2 by itself a billion to the billionth power and maybe you start approaching the odds that big bang zealots promulgate as being the statistically probable odds that life would form on earth. Oh but yes, the "modern" theory of abiogenesis (to signify it is cutting edge science as opposed to just covering their butts for the original flawed theory. )Of course it has to be from a creationist site because noone other than a creationist would dare question scientific dogma

ckb2001

06-28-2007, 12:22 AM

Science doesn't replace religion. You mistake science with logic, which has been around since the dawn of man, just as religion has. They coexist in most humans. True some humans are unbalanced and fall into one or the other camps almost exclusively but most have a balance between the two. It's not either/or but rather "and". Logic "and" Religion have lead man to this point in history and will continue to do so until the end. Logic to deduce the surrounding and religion or philosophy to make sense of it. For tens of thousands of years that has been the dance

This was an argument about trends in history. And there, you DO see science replace religion. Many kinds of healing practices practiced in the ancient world were due to religious ideas about what would (for example) drive demons away, etc.. Today, science is the basis for most accepted modern medicine.

In the ancient world, there were things like rain dances or sacrifices to get nature to "cooperate" and make living conditions better for humans.

This has been replaced by science where science has shown it can. Do I need to go on? And it's not just religion but also philosophy that is being replaced. With almost no exception, what used to be called natural philosophy doesn't exist. That's natural science today, and it's no longer just the musings of philosophers about the natural world that, however interesting, weren't testable or even tested that form the basis of our understanding, NO it's scientific methodology that does.

Please.. I'm sure you can fill in the blanks?

adamprez2003

06-28-2007, 12:25 AM

The assumption man is a mini-God has no evidence supporting it. I mean start with what your definition is of "mini-God" to begin with. How are you defining that? Either way, you can't ASSUME what you want to prove is true and then say "AHA, I can prove what I set out to prove now".

No, there is no known evidence FOR the existence of a God so far in human history (meaning it increases the likelihood of God's existence in a demonstrable way). What you stated is simply illogical.

Evidence? It's a word to describe a certain attribute. The ability to make nature bend to your will. To create life. We can do that. We are taking more and more of the attributes of God every century and will continue to do so into the future. What don't you get about that

adamprez2003

06-28-2007, 12:30 AM

First of all, not all Gods had that characteristic in the past. Note that relatively few religions in the ancient world were monotheistic.

Either way, I already calculated the probability of God's existence for you: zero. And I gave the argument for that. Read it again and tell me what you don't understand so I don't have to repeat myself. That's the mathematical model you're asking for.

The sun was our first God because it gave us life. Science verified this thousands of years later. (Congrats science, we knew you would catch up). How many religions do not have a creation story behind them. Please name them

ckb2001

06-28-2007, 12:31 AM

Once again you get stuck in the minutia. The calculation wasn't based simply on the amino acid but rather what it took to get to amino acid stage. Divide 1/2 by itself a billion to the billionth power and maybe you start approaching the odds that big bang zealots promulgate as being the statistically probable odds that life would form on earth. Oh but yes, the "modern" theory of abiogenesis (to signify it is cutting edge science as opposed to just covering their butts for the original flawed theory. )Of course it has to be from a creationist site because noone other than a creationist would dare question scientific dogma

I tried telling you this before. The calculation of (1/2)^n is NOT the proper calculation!! That's the way you might calculate the probability of obtaining N heads from N independent events (such as coin tosses).

These are NOT independent events!! The people who write those Creationist websites RELY on peoples' ignorance to even write down such claims!! It would never pass the eye of a mathematician.

So, why are those not independent events (meaning why is this not a simulataneous experiment with N coins being made)? Because you're dealing with things that replicate. For example, if you're dealing with a polymer that replicates, you have to use SEQUENTIAL probability, where one event changes the probability of the next happening.

I mean if with 50% probability the polymer is of type A rather than B (say there are only two types), but once one is made it replicates itself (takes material from its environments and "reproduces" so to say), then the probability of getting another A after the first one is very high, etc..

You have to do a sequential probability calculation, and then it's nowhere near absurd. Really, evolutionary theory would have been rejected long time ago if an error this simple were found.

adamprez2003

06-28-2007, 12:35 AM

??

You accused science of being a religion, that is, asking people to accept their arguments on faith. NO scientist does that!!!

And every theory in science (with a few notable exceptions) works only in a majority of cases it is supposed to work in. So, from the outset, the question is what is the accuracy of the model/theory? Thus, as new data is obtained, old theories are discarded in favor of new ones. But, at no time does science assume they have an argument where NO doubt remains! That's a misunderstanding you and others in the religious community often have. You try to paint science as religion, and there's no basis for that.

Same with religion. When one religion doesn't satisfy a particular segment of society they evolve a new one. Generally speaking it always revolves around minor points in that there are common themes to all religions and thereby "religion" tends to signify universal truth and the differing religions simply differentiate themselves on minor aspects

ckb2001

06-28-2007, 12:35 AM

Global warming, global freezing (thirty years earlier), Darwin's theory of evolution, the universe would stop expanding and collapse back onto itself theory, dark matter, etc, etc. Same mumbo jumbo spewed out generation after generation and anyone that disagrees "doesn't know" or "is paid for by the corporations" or is just plain ignorant.

Obviously false (again). How would what is accepted in science change if anyone who disagrees was assumed not to know? Point is you have to provide evidence for your claim and then science listens. Faith is NEVER sufficient.

Either way, the point I made is still valid. Science is NOT a religion. It does NOT accept something on faith alone.

ckb2001

06-28-2007, 12:37 AM

Evidence? It's a word to describe a certain attribute. The ability to make nature bend to your will. To create life. We can do that. We are taking more and more of the attributes of God every century and will continue to do so into the future. What don't you get about that

Does God make mistakes? We do. Isn't God supposed to be omniscient? We aren't. Omnipotent? We aren't.

Give a precise definition of mini-God before claiming we are mini-Gods.

ckb2001

06-28-2007, 12:41 AM

The sun was our first God because it gave us life. Science verified this thousands of years later. (Congrats science, we knew you would catch up). How many religions do not have a creation story behind them. Please name them

Many Creation stories did NOT start with God creating things. In fact, in many mythologies the first God was created from what already existed. That first "stuff" that existed wasn't created by a God in that myth. Shinto is one example.

And no, science hasn't "verified" the sun was our first God.

ckb2001

06-28-2007, 12:45 AM

Same with religion. When one religion doesn't satisfy a particular segment of society they evolve a new one. Generally speaking it always revolves around minor points in that there are common themes to all religions and thereby "religion" tends to signify universal truth and the differing religions simply differentiate themselves on minor aspects

All except the first sentence I agree with. The difference is that scientists assume their works are only valid until further evidence comes along. Religion assumes some of their beliefs are valid, PERIOD, with NO possibility it could be wrong. That is an essential difference.

adamprez2003

06-28-2007, 12:54 AM

More falsehoods.. What is this assertion about "evolution is only now being reconsidered"?? That's just bull! There was greater opposition among scientists to evolutionary theory when it first came out than ever afterwards. As more time went on and more evidence was gathered, it became clear the theory was so accurate you have no serious competition to it today. Today, the questions being asked revolve more around WHICH evolutionary theory is most accurate instead of whether evolution occurred because the evidence for evolution occurring and being responsible for the diversity of life we see today is so overwhelming no scientist really has a good alternative theory to it!

And as far as global warming is concerned, the question isn't whether X or Y is influencing it, the question is "by how much is X or Y influencing average global temperatures?" So, asking about whether the sun getting warmer has something to do with it is irrelevant. Of course there are many influences. The correct question is by how much is any influence affecting average global temperatures on Earth. And not only is the mechanism through which CO2 release adds a net warming effect on the Earth relatively well understood (compared a lot of other things), its effect has been shown constant for the last 420 million years. When you actually calculate with what probability humans are adding a net warming effect through CO2 emissions, it comes out to ~90%. There's a lot of science to back that up, and I've gone through some of that in other threads.

And then you go into illogical nonsense, such as "if time truly existed we could travel back in time". Complete lack of logic and no basis for that argument. We can measure time, and our best physics suggests the time an measured depends on the observer in such a way that traveling back in time is not possible (at least in General Relativity) - it's a deduction from the speed of light being constant from any reference frame.

Oh, and as far as nitpickiness with facts is concerned, it's telling you react that way. You should be happy to be corrected on something like that. Facts are your friends, not your enemy, that is, unless you value something on faith so highly that you're not willing to let facts get in the way. And therein lies the fundamental difference between how scientists defend current dogma and how religious leaders do. At least scientists start off with the assumption they could be wrong. Often, in religion, it's assumed there's NO possibility they could be wrong (such as in claiming God exists). And the other difference is scientists will let Nature decide which theory is correct (through data gathered), whereas in religions you often have this faith-based attack on theories that best fit the data (such as evolution). No, there are significant differences in the way ideas are defended within the two camps.

Name me a religion that can't be wrong. They all evolve over time.

I believe I said Darwin's theory which was dogma for over fifty years. Yeah, now they're reevaluating it. Imagine being a scientist in the fifties trying to reevaluate it. I'm sure you would've got alot of funding for that study -lol.

Global Warming http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/
There are thousands of these articles. It's tedious to discuss it now. It's an argument of faith. Either you believe man is evil or you don't. I like this quotes though

Did medieval global warming take place? Last month the consensus was that it did not; now the correct answer is that nobody really knows.

And of course real life actions by governments that affect billions of people will hinge on these buffoons that form "consensus". Since when is consensus something to be desired? Shouldn't it be being right

Yes I understand the concept of time. But thanks for repeating it. It doesn't mean it exists outside of the minds of men which is what I proposed. It is how we perceive the world. We need time to place ourselves and anticipate events. Can you prove that it exists without mathematical formulas? The time it takes for light to travel is really just a distance measurement given a fancy name - time

ckb2001

06-28-2007, 01:06 AM

Name me a religion that can't be wrong. They all evolve over time.

I believe I said Darwin's theory which was dogma for over fifty years. Yeah, now they're reevaluating it. Imagine being a scientist in the fifties trying to reevaluate it. I'm sure you would've got alot of funding for that study -lol.

How many religious people claim there is NO possibility they could be wrong claiming God exists? A LOT!! You EVER see that in science????

And you're still wrong about evolution. It is NOT being "re-evaluated" in the manner you suggest. Like I said, the level of opposition has decreased to the point there basically is none within science.

If by "re-evaluating" you mean what Creationists and ID people are doing, well, that's first of all not new (they've been doing that for decades), that's second of all not a "re-evaluation" since they already made their decision on what is correct even before the theory existed!

Global Warming http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/
There are thousands of these articles. It's tedious to discuss it now. It's an argument of faith. Either you believe man is evil or you don't. I like this quotes though

Did medieval global warming take place? Last month the consensus was that it did not; now the correct answer is that nobody really knows.

And of course real life actions by governments that affect billions of people will hinge on these buffoons that form "consensus". Since when is consensus something to be desired? Shouldn't it be being right

Good you did that research. And the way scientists come to a "consensus" (when they have to) is to evaluate all the available evidence and make the best estimate they can. When the IPCC says there is a 90% chance humans are adding a net warming effect to the climate, that does NOT mean they KNOW the answer. That means that statistically speaking, if the same conditions existed N times, 90% of the time (so 0.9*N) the predictions would fall within the confidence intervals stated.

That's the difference between statistics and intuition - you can quantify the probability you are accurate.

Also, you should note the following. Though many scientists that do climate research have differing opinions about the IPCC report's conclusions, NONE in the time-span from 1993-2003 published research papers actually disagreeing with the conclusions of the 2001 IPCC report:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."
-----------------------

So, while it's nice to see science progress by finding flaws in certain results of the past, it's also important to CAREFULLY look at the arguments being made and WHICH arguments were shown not to be accurate. It may only be one of many assumptions that has to be revised, not all in the paper in which a flaw was found.

Either way, the BEST estimates scientists have after considering all the evidence available on climate change is put forth in the IPCC report. Unless you have better science to claim what they say is false, you really don't have an argument.

guatemalanfan

06-28-2007, 10:39 AM

We cant create life. That is just ridiculous. Life is already there, they are only changing the mass, changing cells( manipulating the cells) which are allready alive. A great example of that is that we cant, lets say, clone off dead cells, so we cant create the life, only God can.

guatemalanfan

06-28-2007, 11:01 AM

You don't need the fear of an invisible man setting you on fire to get you to act right. Deep down inside, the reason that people who act morally do so is not because of fear of God, it's because they know their actions will make the world a better and easier place to live in. What's wrong with believing in mankind? Why does someone need to believe in an invisible being that insists on blind faith and constant worship, and one who also threatens you with death if you don't comply?

You cant believe in mankind!!. That's why we have goberments. Because we cant do anything without something bigger. Goberments are there because the human is selfish. You cant really trust any human. The human wouldnt act morally without rules off a God to follow. or as ridiculous as to follow a goberment rules that is full with other selfish human. Human is selfish for nature, you cant believe in mankind

Sponge

06-28-2007, 11:09 AM

I'm sorry but the world would be **** if people didn't believe in a higher up. Partly because no one would regret their actions they would just live a life to please themselves.

Thats just my IMO. I don't want to start a HUGE debate here.

I understand you don't want that to be debated but I respectfully disagree. There are other causes for consideration and respect of others besides religion. Simple practicality for one. A selfish life is likely to get a person into trouble with authority, with your family and friends, and with anyone who objects to the person's 'me-first' behavior. Take Paris Hilton for example.

I've never seen or heard of any evidence that non-believers are more problematic societally than believers.

That being said, if a person's belief in a higher power helps them in their life, I'm all for it. Of course, if they are only doing good works because they think God is monitoring them, I'm not sure how sincere that particular good work is.

Sponge

06-28-2007, 11:15 AM

You cant believe in mankind!!. That's why we have goberments. Because we cant do anything without something bigger. Goberments are there because the human is selfish. You cant really trust any human. The human wouldnt act morally without rules off a God to follow. or as ridiculous as to follow a goberment rules that is full with other selfish human. Human is selfish for nature, you cant believe in mankind

Again, I must respectfully and completely disagree. While it is very true that many humans do act selfishly, I don't agree that it is human nature. There are all sorts of people all over the world who return lost wallets even though they need the money, and don't do it because their government or god told them to. They do it because they have empathy for their fellow humans.

guatemalanfan

06-28-2007, 11:22 AM

Again, I must respectfully and completely disagree. While it is very true that many humans do act selfishly, I don't agree that it is human nature. There are all sorts of people all over the world who return lost wallets even though they need the money, and don't do it because their government or god told them to. They do it because they have empathy for their fellow humans.

Ok. Ill put it this way. lets say the world is in crisis. I you see a person you dont know, that is satrbing and about to die. You are in the same condition but you have a piece of bread. Would you give it to him?. I thinks a situation like that shows that any person would eat the bread and show his human nature. We are like animals we would even kill eachother to survive.

Sponge

06-28-2007, 11:41 AM

Ok. Ill put it this way. lets say the world is in crisis. I you see a person you dont know, that is satrbing and about to die. You are in the same condition but you have a piece of bread. Would you give it to him?. I thinks a situation like that shows that any person would eat the bread and show his human nature. We are like animals we would even kill eachother to survive.

I might share it with him. I think we define selfishness differently. I would consider it selfish if I had two pieces of bread, and I gave none to the other person. Self-preservation is a powerful instinct, but it can be overridden by will. I hate to use a war example, but there are many examples of soldiers sacrificing themselves for their comrades. If it was human nature to be selfish, those soldiers would just turn and run.

As for being like animals, of course we are like animals since we are an animal. The belief that humans are somehow better than animals is anthropocentric and arrogant. There are many instances in nature where a mother animal is killed defending her young. I would call that an unselfish act.

ABrownLamp

06-28-2007, 11:44 AM

Ok. Ill put it this way. lets say the world is in crisis. I you see a person you dont know, that is satrbing and about to die. You are in the same condition but you have a piece of bread. Would you give it to him?. I thinks a situation like that shows that any person would eat the bread and show his human nature. We are like animals we would even kill eachother to survive.

This is just nonsense. Are you suggesting that a starving Christian is more likely give his bread to another man than a starving atheist? What are you basing this on?

guatemalanfan

06-28-2007, 11:49 AM

This is just nonsense. Are you suggesting that a starving Christian is more likely give his bread to another man than a starving atheist? What are you basing this on?

No im just trying to say what human nature is. And we cant trust in mankind as we trust in god because we would do anything to survive. In a human is always first what I want.

guatemalanfan

06-28-2007, 11:54 AM

I might share it with him. I think we define selfishness differently. I would consider it selfish if I had two pieces of bread, and I gave none to the other person. Self-preservation is a powerful instinct, but it can be overridden by will. I hate to use a war example, but there are many examples of soldiers sacrificing themselves for their comrades. If it was human nature to be selfish, those soldiers would just turn and run.

As for being like animals, of course we are like animals since we are an animal. The belief that humans are somehow better than animals is anthropocentric and arrogant. There are many instances in nature where a mother animal is killed defending her young. I would call that an unselfish act.

well, lets take out the word selfish. The human does first what he wants. For example we /I lose someone. I cry not for him. But because he or she is not longer with me. If you see carefully you are thinking in yourself. Thinking first what I want.

Pagan

06-28-2007, 11:56 AM

Ok. Ill put it this way. lets say the world is in crisis. I you see a person you dont know, that is satrbing and about to die. You are in the same condition but you have a piece of bread. Would you give it to him?. I thinks a situation like that shows that any person would eat the bread and show his human nature. We are like animals we would even kill eachother to survive.
That's an extreme situation bro. No one in their right mind would die of starvation to save a stranger.

ABrownLamp

06-28-2007, 11:59 AM

No im just trying to say what human nature is. And we cant trust in mankind as we trust in god because we would do anything to survive. In a human is always first what I want.

I dont agree. Theres a famous quote that says: Evil people do evil things. Good people do good thing. But to make a good person do evil things you need religion.

I mean would a normal human being look at a group of children and women they dont know and want to blow them up. Would a normal person want to blow themselves up? Would a normal person get in a plane and fly it into a building killing thousands of people? Would a normal person look at a baby girl and take a sharp rock and cut off their genitals? I find that hard to beleive.

guatemalanfan

06-28-2007, 12:05 PM

I dont agree. Theres a famous quote that says: Evil people do evil things. Good people do good thing. But to make a good person do evil things you need religion.

I mean would a normal human being look at a group of children and women they dont know and want to blow them up. Would a normal person want to blow themselves up? Would a normal person get in a plane and fly it into a building killing thousands of people? Would a normal person look at a baby girl and take a sharp rock and cut off their genitals? I find that hard to beleive.

No, to make a good person do bad thing you need pasion. When you have pasion you do crazy things.

Sponge

06-28-2007, 12:14 PM

well, lets take out the word selfish. The human does first what he wants. For example we /I lose someone. I cry not for him. But because he or she is not longer with me. If you see carefully you are thinking in yourself. Thinking first what I want.

Please remember that you are speaking your own opinion and experience only, as am I. You can't project how you would react to the loss of a loved one onto another person and say that all people are the same. Some people react differently to the loss of a loved one. I will grant that it does take an amount of effort to suppress one's ego, and that many people don't make that effort. That doesn't mean they can't though.

It's perfectly possible to think of others first. For example, in my field of counselling, it is quite often necessary to put my own needs aside for the sake of a client. I do it on a daily basis. Every person who goes to work in the morning because they want to feed their family when they would rather sleep in is thinking first of others.

guatemalanfan

06-28-2007, 12:16 PM

That's an extreme situation bro. No one in their right mind would die of starvation to save a stranger.

well, I study Economics, I have to think like that.:lol: everything in economics is how the people interacts in sociaty. Plus I study Austrian economics, if someone knows about that well know that those are a little extreme too:lol:

ABrownLamp

06-28-2007, 12:18 PM

No, to make a good person do bad thing you need pasion. When you have pasion you do crazy things.

What does passion have to do with stealing, or not remembering the Sabbath, or not honoring your mother and father, or coveting your neighbors things...I mean just about all of the sins in the 10 Commandements have nothing to do with passion

guatemalanfan

06-28-2007, 12:20 PM

Please remember that you are speaking your own opinion and experience only, as am I. You can't project how you would react to the loss of a loved one onto another person and say that all people are the same. Some people react differently to the loss of a loved one. I will grant that it does take an amount of effort to suppress one's ego, and that many people don't make that effort. That doesn't mean they can't though.

It's perfectly possible to think of others first. For example, in my field of counselling, it is quite often necessary to put my own needs aside for the sake of a client. I do it on a daily basis. Every person who goes to work in the morning because they want to feed their family when they would rather sleep in is thinking first of others.

I thinks first other too, But Im going deep here. I love someone I want the best for him, I would die for someone. But that is because I love that person. I Wouldnt like to see her bad. Againg Im going really deep here

adamprez2003

06-28-2007, 09:36 PM

well, I study Economics, I have to think like that.:lol: everything in economics is how the people interacts in sociaty. Plus I study Austrian economics, if someone knows about that well know that those are a little extreme too:lol:

Hayek and Von Mises were never extreme:lol: It's the rest of the world that's nuts:lol: Austrian Economic Theory and the boys from University of Chicago are the only minds that matter when it comes to economic thought. Hope that doesn't come off as being extreme:evil: I still read Road to Serfdom from time to time:lol:

adamprez2003

06-28-2007, 10:13 PM

I tried telling you this before. The calculation of (1/2)^n is NOT the proper calculation!! That's the way you might calculate the probability of obtaining N heads from N independent events (such as coin tosses).

These are NOT independent events!! The people who write those Creationist websites RELY on peoples' ignorance to even write down such claims!! It would never pass the eye of a mathematician.

So, why are those not independent events (meaning why is this not a simulataneous experiment with N coins being made)? Because you're dealing with things that replicate. For example, if you're dealing with a polymer that replicates, you have to use SEQUENTIAL probability, where one event changes the probability of the next happening.

I mean if with 50% probability the polymer is of type A rather than B (say there are only two types), but once one is made it replicates itself (takes material from its environments and "reproduces" so to say), then the probability of getting another A after the first one is very high, etc..

You have to do a sequential probability calculation, and then it's nowhere near absurd. Really, evolutionary theory would have been rejected long time ago if an error this simple were found.

Harold Morowitz, a renowned physicist from Yale University and author of Origin of Cellular Life (1993), declared that the odds for any kind of spontaneous generation were one chance in 10100,000,000,000 .

Sir Fred Hoyle, a popular agnostic who wrote Evolution from Space (1981), proposed that such odds were one chance in 1040,000 ("the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747").[5] (http://www.think-works.com/the_complexity_of_life.htm#_ftn5)

Francis Crick, an atheist and co-discoverer of the DNA structure in 1953, calls life "almost a miracle."[6] (http://www.think-works.com/the_complexity_of_life.htm#_ftn6) He couldnâ€™t rationalize the metaphysical implications of his DNA discovery so he devised his "interstellar spores" theory in the 1970s.

By the way, scientists from various disciplines generally set their â€œImpossibility Standardâ€ at one chance in 1050 (1 in a 100,000 billion, billion, billion, billion, billion). Therefore, whether one chance in 10100,000,000,000 or one chance in 1040,000, the notion that life somehow rose from non-life has clearly met the scientific standard for statistical impossibility.

adamprez2003

06-28-2007, 10:16 PM

Harold Morowitz, a renowned physicist from Yale University and author of Origin of Cellular Life (1993), declared that the odds for any kind of spontaneous generation were one chance in 10100,000,000,000 .

Sir Fred Hoyle, a popular agnostic who wrote Evolution from Space (1981), proposed that such odds were one chance in 1040,000 ("the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747").[5] (http://www.think-works.com/the_complexity_of_life.htm#_ftn5)

Francis Crick, an atheist and co-discoverer of the DNA structure in 1953, calls life "almost a miracle."[6] (http://www.think-works.com/the_complexity_of_life.htm#_ftn6) He couldnâ€™t rationalize the metaphysical implications of his DNA discovery so he devised his "interstellar spores" theory in the 1970s.

By the way, scientists from various disciplines generally set their â€œImpossibility Standardâ€ at one chance in 1050 (1 in a 100,000 billion, billion, billion, billion, billion). Therefore, whether one chance in 10100,000,000,000 or one chance in 1040,000, the notion that life somehow rose from non-life has clearly met the scientific standard for statistical impossibility.

http://www.think-works.com/the_complexity_of_life.htm

Interesting article overall. Sums up the all of the ridiculous leaps of "faith" our world renowned "scientists" must make to keep their myth alive

Here's another scientists mathematical formula for the probability that chance created life on earth

The next stop would be to delve into the mathematical probabilities that vastly complex organs such as the brain, the eyes, etc., could have developed by themselves. But before we begin, I'd like you to be able to fathom what the numbers that we will be giving you represent. It has been estimated that in 30 billion years there would only be 10 to the 18th power seconds. Scientists estimate that in our entire universe there are only 10 to the 80 power electrons (that's a 1 with 80 zeros after it). So I guess we would agree that 10 to the 100th is a number that's pretty much impossible for us to truly comprehend. With this introduction, hopefully we'll be able to properly appreciate the upcoming quotations.
Ilya Prigogine, chemist-physicist, recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry, wrote: "The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero."(1) That's right - zero!

This one is probably more up your alley
http://www.life.uiuc.edu/crofts/papers/Life_information_entropy_and_time.html

guatemalanfan

06-28-2007, 10:30 PM

Hayek and Von Mises were never extreme:lol: It's the rest of the world that's nuts:lol: Austrian Economic Theory and the boys from University of Chicago are the only minds that matter when it comes to economic thought. Hope that doesn't come off as being extreme:evil: I still read Road to Serfdom from time to time:lol:

yeah they never will never understand Austrian school. In my college the library is called Von mises. And 2 auditoriums are Milton Friedman and Hayek.

I go to Universidad Francisco Marroquin www.ufm.edu (http://www.ufm.edu) . we have the biggest collection of liberty books in the world in opur library.

When you star to study Austrian school. You realize how stupid goverments are, and have been. andhow stupid Keynes was

ABrownLamp

06-28-2007, 10:33 PM

http://www.think-works.com/the_complexity_of_life.htm

Interesting article overall. Sums up the all of the ridiculous leaps of "faith" our world renowned "scientists" must make to keep their myth alive

Here's another scientists mathematical formula for the probability that chance created life on earth

The next stop would be to delve into the mathematical probabilities that vastly complex organs such as the brain, the eyes, etc., could have developed by themselves. But before we begin, I'd like you to be able to fathom what the numbers that we will be giving you represent. It has been estimated that in 30 billion years there would only be 1018 seconds. Scientists estimate that in our entire universe there are only 1080 electrons (that's a 1 with 80 zeros after it). So I guess we would agree that 10100 is a number that's pretty much impossible for us to truly comprehend. With this introduction, hopefully we'll be able to properly appreciate the upcoming quotations.
Ilya Prigogine, chemist-physicist, recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry, wrote: "The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero."(1) That's right - zero!

Bro, dinosaurs walked the Earth before humans. Unless you think there was some sort of divine purpose for a population of enormous walking lizards that later went extinct this is really pretty silly.

I mean there is organic material left from meteors in the clouds right now.

I wonder what the odds when you were born were that at 6/28/2007 at 10:30 pm you would be receiving a response from me on Finheaven about this issue would be? I mean I hadnt even been born yet. Infinitesmal probabilities happen alll the time.

Also, the irreducible complexity of the eye is so well established that even Darwin - in the primitive state of the theory of evolution had an entire chapter based on it. We live in the frikkin age of the internet. Do you people just not want to learn about this stuff?

adamprez2003

06-28-2007, 10:47 PM

Bro, dinosaurs walked the Earth before humans. Unless you think there was some sort of divine purpose for a population of enormous walking lizards that later went extinct this is really pretty silly.

I mean there is organic material left from meteors in the clouds right now.

I wonder what the odds when you were born were that at 6/28/2007 at 10:30 pm you would be receiving a response from me on Finheaven about this issue would be? I mean I hadnt even been born yet. Infinitesmal probabilities happen alll the time.

Also, the irreducible complexity of the eye is so well established that even Darwin - in the primitive state of the theory of evolution had an entire chapter based on it. We live in the frikkin age of the internet. Do you people just not want to learn about this stuff?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

This quote sums it up
Origin of life studies is a limited field of research despite its profound impact on biology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology) and human understanding of the natural world. Progress in this field is generally slow and sporadic, though it still draws the attention of many due to the eminence of the question being investigated. One plausible reason for the slow rate of progress is that it is difficult to obtain funding for research in this area, since practical commercial applications for the research are difficult to foresee.
Given that the origin of life is proposed to have proceeded by spontaneous chemical reaction, the chemistry concerned should presumably be rather robust and therefore relatively easy to repeat. The fact that it is proving very difficult to do so is a major challenge for researchers in this field, suggesting they may be focusing on the wrong locations, and on the wrong initial chemistry.
For the observed evolution of life on earth, see the timeline of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_life)

As to God being divine, that's for others to decide. Why dinosaurs walking the earth would be considered divine is beyond me. As for the seeding hypothesis (meteors) it wouldnt create the complex animals you see on earth. Plus it doesnt answer the question

An alternative to Earthly abiogenesis is the hypothesis that primitive life may have originally formed extraterrestrially, either in space or on a nearby planet (Mars). (Note that exogenesis is related to, but not the same as, the notion of panspermia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia)).
Organic compounds are relatively common in space, especially in the outer solar system where volatiles are not evaporated by solar heating. Comets are encrusted by outer layers of dark material, thought to be a tar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar)-like substance composed of complex organic material formed from simple carbon compounds after reactions initiated mostly by irradiation by ultraviolet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet) light. It is supposed that a rain of material from comets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet) could have brought significant quantities of such complex organic molecules to Earth.
An alternative but related hypothesis, proposed to explain the presence of life on Earth so soon after the planet had cooled down, with apparently very little time for prebiotic evolution, is that life formed first on early Mars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_%28planet%29). Due to its smaller size Mars cooled before Earth (a difference of hundreds of millions of years), allowing prebiotic processes there while Earth was still too hot. Life was then transported to the cooled Earth when crustal material was blasted off Mars by asteroid and comet impacts. Mars continued to cool faster and eventually became hostile to the continued evolution or even existence of life (it lost its atmosphere due to low volcanism), Earth is following the same fate as Mars, but at a slower rate.
Neither hypothesis actually answers the question of how life first originated, but merely shifts it to another planet or a comet. However, the advantage of an extraterrestrial origin of primitive life is that life is not required to have evolved on each planet it occurs on, but rather in a single location, and then spread about the galaxy to other star systems via cometary and/or meteorite impact. Evidence to support the plausibility of the concept is scant, but it finds support in recent study of Martian meteorites found in Antarctica and in studies of extremophile microbes.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#_note-12) Additional support comes from a recent discovery of a bacterial ecosytem whose energy source is radioactivity.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#_note-13)

adamprez2003

06-28-2007, 10:50 PM

c

adamprez2003

06-28-2007, 10:56 PM

yeah they never will never understand Austrian school. In my college the library is called Von mises. And 2 auditoriums are Milton Friedman and Hayek.

I go to Universidad Francisco Marroquin www.ufm.edu (http://www.ufm.edu) . we have the biggest collection of liberty books in the world in opur library.

When you star to study Austrian school. You realize how stupid goverments are, and have been. andhow stupid Keynes was

Keynes is one of the three most destructive men in the 20th century. The amount of waste and theft that he introduced into economic systems is criminal. Hopefully we overcome his influence one day.

The Liberty press has some of the best books ever:D

guatemalanfan

06-28-2007, 11:06 PM

Keynes is one of the three most destructive men in the 20th century. The amount of waste and theft that he introduced into economic systems is criminal. Hopefully we overcome his influence one day.

The Liberty press has some of the best books ever:D

A lot of the books in my librery are also avaible on line :lol:

And next semsesterI'm gonna Philosophy of Mises with one of the only two persons alive that had clases with mises: Joseph Keckeissen

adamprez2003

06-28-2007, 11:12 PM

A lot of the books in my librery are also avaible on line :lol:

And next semsesterI'm gonna Philosophy of Mises with one of the only two persons alive that had clases with mises: Joseph Keckeissen

Nice!!!! Keep the faith! We need all the defenders of liberty we can get in this world:lol:

ckb2001

06-28-2007, 11:24 PM

Harold Morowitz, a renowned physicist from Yale University and author of Origin of Cellular Life (1993), declared that the odds for any kind of spontaneous generation were one chance in 10100,000,000,000 .

Sir Fred Hoyle, a popular agnostic who wrote Evolution from Space (1981), proposed that such odds were one chance in 1040,000 ("the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747").[5] (http://www.think-works.com/the_complexity_of_life.htm#_ftn5)

Francis Crick, an atheist and co-discoverer of the DNA structure in 1953, calls life "almost a miracle."[6] (http://www.think-works.com/the_complexity_of_life.htm#_ftn6) He couldnâ€™t rationalize the metaphysical implications of his DNA discovery so he devised his "interstellar spores" theory in the 1970s.

By the way, scientists from various disciplines generally set their â€œImpossibility Standardâ€ at one chance in 1050 (1 in a 100,000 billion, billion, billion, billion, billion). Therefore, whether one chance in 10100,000,000,000 or one chance in 1040,000, the notion that life somehow rose from non-life has clearly met the scientific standard for statistical impossibility.

So you completely disregarded my post on sequential probability? That quote from Morowitz deals specifically with this: suppose you take a bacterium, heat it to a point where it completely breaks down, cool the mixture, and then calculate the probability it will reform into a bacterium. OF COURSE that probability is unbelievably small.

But, that's NOT what the theory of abiogenesis deals with. Maybe you didn't understand the first time. You have to consider the probability of getting from one intermediate step to the next in sequence, not of a bacterium forming ALL AT ONCE!!

Look, it's nice you dug up something on the web, but it would be nicer if you took into account what I already explained BEFORE doing that.

For example, here's one research paper by Morowitz:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/36/13168

Note first of all what the context of the debates he's in is. It's the question of whether a "gene first" or a "metabolism first" model of abiogenesis is more likely to be correct. And he is arguing that he thinks abiogenesis is more likely if it's "metabolism first" instead of "gene first". THAT is what he is really arguing. Your link makes it look like he came up with a result that all but precludes a theory of abiogenesis from being possible, when in fact HE is proposing a way where it could work!!

Here are some QUOTES:

"Genetics-first origin of life scenarios (ref. 2; see also ref. 3) can be viewed as a reification of this interpretation, an attempt to impose Darwinian selection as the sole dynamical principle governing all stages of life. Self-reproducing genetic templates are proposed as the first emergent biological structures, which then exclusively determine through catalysis what biochemistry is supported."

..

The irreducible complexity of genetics-first origin scenarios is high, requiring joint emergence of catalysis, compartmentation, and heritability to make the minimal self-perpetuating structures. The concentration dependence of their synthesis also has been criticized as geophysically unrealistic (9, 10). Metabolism-first scenarios are therefore gaining acceptance as both more plausible and potentially more predictive of observed forms.

...

Our interpretation of universality in metabolism replaces a pure paradigm of inheritance with a mixed paradigm, where energetics, transport and transformation properties, and ergodic sampling select biological processes sufficiently close to bulk physical chemistry (18), many of which precede the genome structurally and phylogenetically. Genetic inheritance with its element of frozen accident still may determine the possibilities for regulatory structures at higher levels of complexity and contingency, but there remains a unique role for metabolism in biasing selection on those structures that can affect the net anabolic rate."
----------------------

So, Morowitz is introducing calculations as the one your link has NOT to suggest abiogenesis is so unlikely it can't be done, but to suggest a set of intermediate stages (remember, sequential probability?), specifically dealing with metabolic cycles that are independent of the genome, but may (with higher probability) precede it.

So, again, you have to look at sequential probabilities, not spontaneous generation!! I told you that already.

Let me just go through a few more of the things that link quotes to show you this is a pattern among such Creationist sites.

So, regarding Fred Hoyle, it's the exact same critique. No modern theory of abiogenesis deals with spontaneous generation of the sort Hoyle looked into (yes, his math is correct, but the model doesn't at ALL represent modern theories of abiogenesis - furthermore, note he's not an expert in this area either).

So, this idea of a "tornado in a junkyard making a 747" has NOTHING to do with current theories of abiogenesis.

And as far as Crick is concerned, yeah he was a great scientist and won a Nobel Prize, but I don't know of anything he did that specifically helped us understand how life originated. His ideas on panspermia were never really supported by any evidence to speak of. Yes, there are serious questions as to whether comets brought the primordial stuff from which life arose to Earth, but NOT in the form Crick was proposing with some kind of extraterrestrial intelligence. He simply didn't make an important scientific contribution in that one area (which isn't a problem - you remember the successes, not the failures of these people).

In any case, I challenge you to find one critique of what I said that does NOT make the EXACT same error of NOT considering sequential probability, which is what you HAVE to consider if you want to represent modern theories of abiogenesis accurately.

ckb2001

06-28-2007, 11:32 PM

http://www.think-works.com/the_complexity_of_life.htm

Interesting article overall. Sums up the all of the ridiculous leaps of "faith" our world renowned "scientists" must make to keep their myth alive

Here's another scientists mathematical formula for the probability that chance created life on earth

The next stop would be to delve into the mathematical probabilities that vastly complex organs such as the brain, the eyes, etc., could have developed by themselves. But before we begin, I'd like you to be able to fathom what the numbers that we will be giving you represent. It has been estimated that in 30 billion years there would only be 10 to the 18th power seconds. Scientists estimate that in our entire universe there are only 10 to the 80 power electrons (that's a 1 with 80 zeros after it). So I guess we would agree that 10 to the 100th is a number that's pretty much impossible for us to truly comprehend. With this introduction, hopefully we'll be able to properly appreciate the upcoming quotations.
Ilya Prigogine, chemist-physicist, recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry, wrote: "The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero."(1) That's right - zero!

This one is probably more up your alley
http://www.life.uiuc.edu/crofts/papers/Life_information_entropy_and_time.html

?

That site has exact quotes from your previous link, and the exact same flaw I mentioned in it exists. I responded to that above.

And what about the link at the bottom are you pointing to? Not even sure exactly how it's relevant to the arguments you gave...

adamprez2003

06-29-2007, 12:36 AM

So you completely disregarded my post on sequential probability? That quote from Morowitz deals specifically with this: suppose you take a bacterium, heat it to a point where it completely breaks down, cool the mixture, and then calculate the probability it will reform into a bacterium. OF COURSE that probability is unbelievably small.

But, that's NOT what the theory of abiogenesis deals with. Maybe you didn't understand the first time. You have to consider the probability of getting from one intermediate step to the next in sequence, not of a bacterium forming ALL AT ONCE!!

Look, it's nice you dug up something on the web, but it would be nicer if you took into account what I already explained BEFORE doing that.

For example, here's one research paper by Morowitz:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/36/13168

Note first of all what the context of the debates he's in is. It's the question of whether a "gene first" or a "metabolism first" model of abiogenesis is more likely to correct. And he is arguing that he thinks abiogenesis is more likely if it's "metabolism first" instead of "gene first". THAT is what he is really arguing. Your link makes it look like he came up with a result that all but precludes a theory of abiogenesis from being possible, when in fact HE is proposing a way where it could work!!

Here are some QUOTES:

"Genetics-first origin of life scenarios (ref. 2; see also ref. 3) can be viewed as a reification of this interpretation, an attempt to impose Darwinian selection as the sole dynamical principle governing all stages of life. Self-reproducing genetic templates are proposed as the first emergent biological structures, which then exclusively determine through catalysis what biochemistry is supported."

..

The irreducible complexity of genetics-first origin scenarios is high, requiring joint emergence of catalysis, compartmentation, and heritability to make the minimal self-perpetuating structures. The concentration dependence of their synthesis also has been criticized as geophysically unrealistic (9, 10). Metabolism-first scenarios are therefore gaining acceptance as both more plausible and potentially more predictive of observed forms.

...

Our interpretation of universality in metabolism replaces a pure paradigm of inheritance with a mixed paradigm, where energetics, transport and transformation properties, and ergodic sampling select biological processes sufficiently close to bulk physical chemistry (18), many of which precede the genome structurally and phylogenetically. Genetic inheritance with its element of frozen accident still may determine the possibilities for regulatory structures at higher levels of complexity and contingency, but there remains a unique role for metabolism in biasing selection on those structures that can affect the net anabolic rate."
----------------------

So, Morowitz is introducing calculations as the one your link has NOT to suggest abiogenesis is so unlikely it can't be done, but to suggest a set of intermediate stages (remember, sequential probability?), specifically dealing with metabolic cycles that are independent of the genome, but may (with higher probability) precede it.

So, again, you have to look at sequential probabilities, not spontaneous generation!! I told you that already.

Let me just go through a few more of the things that link quotes to show you this is a pattern among such Creationist sites.

So, regarding Fred Hoyle, it's the exact same critique. No modern theory of abiogenesis deals with spontaneous generation of the sort Hoyle looked into (yes, his math is correct, but the model doesn't at ALL represent modern theories of abiogenesis - furthermore, note he's not an expert in this area either).

So, this idea of a "tornado in a junkyard making a 747" has NOTHING to do with current theories of abiogenesis.

And as far as Crick is concerned, yeah he was a great scientist and won a Nobel Prize, but I don't know of anything he did that specifically helped us understand how life originated. His ideas on panspermia were never really supported by any evidence to speak of. Yes, there are serious questions as to whether comets brought the primordial stuff from which life arose to Earth, but NOT in the form Crick was proposing with some kind of extraterrestrial intelligence. He simply didn't make an important scientific contribution in that one area (which isn't a problem - you remember the successes, not the failures of these people).

In any case, I challenge you to find one critique of what I said that does NOT make the EXACT same error of NOT considering sequential probability, which is what you HAVE to consider if you want to represent modern theories of abiogenesis accurately.

There are hundreds of critiques of modern abiogenesis theory. Even ones that defend it will say it isn't fact, it's merely another in a long line of theories in the scramble to defend the faith that life started from nothing.

here is a quote from a defender of the scientific faith

Of course, it is one thing to say that scientists take abiogenesis seriously; it is quite another to say that abiogenesis is true. As Noebel states, the evolution of life from nonlife has never been directly observed in nature (p. 328). And Noebel is certainly right to demand that abiogenesis should not be taught as a fact in science classrooms for the simple reason that abiogenesis is not a scientific fact.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/noebel.html

ckb2001

06-29-2007, 12:43 AM

There are hundreds of critiques of modern abiogenesis theory. Even ones that defend it will say it isn't fact, it's merely another in a long line of theories in the scramble to defend the faith that life started from nothing.

here is a quote from a defender of the scientific faith

Of course, it is one thing to say that scientists take abiogenesis seriously; it is quite another to say that abiogenesis is true. As Noebel states, the evolution of life from nonlife has never been directly observed in nature (p. 328). And Noebel is certainly right to demand that abiogenesis should not be taught as a fact in science classrooms for the simple reason that abiogenesis is not a scientific fact.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/noebel.html

Every theory of abiogenesis today is incomplete. That's not worth pointing out. IF you are going to argue life did NOT evolve, then you are going to actually have to show all such theories CAN'T be correct.

Make that distinction and I'll listen. As far as what to teach in classrooms, make sure you make the proper distinction between evolutionary theory and any theory of abiogenesis. The theory of evolution is supported by such masasive evidence there is no serious competition to it, so it should be the only one taught. But, there's little to teach in terms of abiogenesis except a few ideas one can talk about in 5 minutes.

No dominant theory of abiogenesis exists that is in any way comparable to the success the theory of evolution has had (which deals with how organisms evolve AFTER the first ones came into being - natural selection is a meaningless concept if there are no genes!!). ALL theories of abiogenesis are only partially acceptable. So? None of that supports the contention life did NOT evolve. You have to make that distinction: evolutionary theory vs abiogenesis. Those two overlap, but are NOT the same. And you were saying people were "re-evaluating" the theory of evolution. That isn't true within science.

adamprez2003

06-29-2007, 01:02 AM

Every theory of abiogenesis today is incomplete. That's not worth pointing out. IF you are going to argue life did NOT evolve, then you are going to actually have to show all such theories CAN'T be correct.

Make that distinction and I'll listen. As far as what to teach in classrooms, make sure you make the proper distinction between evolutionary theory and any theory of abiogenesis. The theory of evolution is supported by such masasive evidence there is no serious competition to it, so it should be the only one taught. But, there's little to teach in terms of abiogenesis except a few ideas one can talk about in 5 minutes.

No dominant theory of abiogenesis exists that is in any way comparable to the success the theory of evolution has had (which deals with how organisms evolve AFTER the first ones came into being - natural selection is a meaningless concept if there are no genes!!). ALL theories of abiogenesis are only partially acceptable. So? None of that supports the contention life did NOT evolve. You have to make that distinction: evolutionary theory vs abiogenesis. Those two overlap, but are NOT the same. And you were saying people were "re-evaluating" the theory of evolution. That isn't true within science.

I never argued life didn't evolve. There is obviously evolution up to a point. What type of evolution and how it works and whether every life form evolved or were created is open to question at this time in our miniscule knowledge of the world. At this stage to take any stance in the creation or science belief is merely a matter of what faith you subscribe too. Neither side has proof but rather faith. Both sides can argue their points and point to things that bolster their arguments but neither side has proof. You've merely substituted one religion for another. You fail to grasp that the religous experience is based on observation too. One that obviously you have never observed or felt

We evolved the dog from the wolf by carefully breeding the alpha tendencies out of the wolf. Why wouldn't a being do the same with life on this planet. Until your side can kill God once and for all you are merely another religion seeking to take his place on the throne

ckb2001

06-29-2007, 01:22 AM

I never argued life didn't evolve. There is obviously evolution up to a point. What type of evolution and how it works and whether every life form evolved or were created is open to question at this time in our miniscule knowledge of the world. At this stage to take any stance in the creation or science belief is merely a matter of what faith you subscribe too. Neither side has proof but rather faith. Both sides can argue their points and point to things that bolster their arguments but neither side has proof. You've merely substituted one religion for another. You fail to grasp that the religous experience is based on observation too. One that obviously you have never observed or felt

We evolved the dog from the wolf by carefully breeding the alpha tendencies out of the wolf. Why wouldn't a being do the same with life on this planet. Until your side can kill God once and for all you are merely another religion seeking to take his place on the throne

Again, there is NO faith involved here. And it's completely misplaced to talk about "proof" in science like that. All you can do is talk about the probability of a theory being accurate, and the theory of evolution has so much evidence supporting it the likelihood it isn't accurate (some evolutionary theory that is, be it a more gradual or punctuated equilibrium model) is nearly zero.

There is a LOT of evidence that evolutionary theories predict with high accuracy, but no intelligent design theory could. Start with the fossil record. We have found certain sets of complete fossil records, that is, where all the major intermediate forms have been found. Well, current theories of evolution would be false if the order of those fossils were completely random, but they're not. No, they're in the order predicted (you can't predict the exact intermediate forms, but not all orders are consistent with evolutionary theory).

On the contrary, an intelligent design theory is consistent with ALL orders such fossils could ever appear in. That means that the fossil record serves as evidence FOR evolutionary theory but can't serve as evidence FOR intelligent design, since ALL possibilities are equally probable. The fossil record simply can't be used to test ID.

That is a pattern that continues with other, even more important, forms of evidence. There is no reason a "tree of life" should emerge if you assume all organisms were simply created at some moment in time. The relationships (calculated through a distance matrix) could be anything! But, they aren't. They support the claims made by evolutionary theory. Thus, such distance matrices (how different the genomes are of various organisms) serve as more evidence FOR evolutionary theory but can't help support ID theory, since ID theory doesn't predict this particular relationship - it is simply noncommittal on it, meaning it's useless for explaining why the relationships are THAT way and not different!

Furthermore, some aspects of certain Creationist theories can be "disproven" if you wish. Those suggesting the Earth is only a few thousand years old have radioactive dating to worry about (not that they care about "facts", but in science such dating methods would be sufficient to rule out many Creationist theories).

And then you can look at how organisms are designed.

In the theory of evolution, you expect that designs are near optimal GIVEN the previous step. So, IF you already have an inverted eye, then GIVEN that construct, evolution should produce a near-optimal structure. But, of course one can design a FAR better eye if one started from scratch.

ID theory can't explain this, but evolutionary theories can.

Then you have arguments about irreducible complexity from ID people where many systems they claim are irreducibly complex have been shown not to be. Computer simulations not only show evolution can account for such changes, but that the rate of change is sufficient to work in the time given.

The list goes on and on. Point is the theory of evolution does NOT rely at ALL on faith. It is a theory that best fits the data we have, meaning it is consistent with the data we have, but NOT consistent with most other possibilities. This is totally unlike ID where you can't even test the theory.

And keep in mind evolution requires only mechanisms that we have "proof" exist. I mean whether it's cosmic radiation that is a source of mutations or changes in geology that allow for changing environments organisms need to adapt to, evolution uses only natural phenomena we can "prove" exist. ID requires faith and has FAR less power of explanation than evolution has (something consistent with every possibility is a useless idea).

Finally, look at the deceptive nature of Creationist websites. Why do they pick one piece of evidence, take it totally out of context and hope the reader isn't knowledgable enough to find the flaw?? Why is it that among biologists, there are practically none (who actually publish research papers) that claim evolution doesn't account for the variability of life? Why is it that NOT ONE scientific research paper supporting ID theory has EVER been published?

WHY? Because it's stuff you can only accept if you have faith. Go with what is most supported by evidence and there is no competition for the theory of evolution.

adamprez2003

06-30-2007, 01:20 PM

Again, there is NO faith involved here. And it's completely misplaced to talk about "proof" in science like that. All you can do is talk about the probability of a theory being accurate, and the theory of evolution has so much evidence supporting it the likelihood it isn't accurate (some evolutionary theory that is, be it a more gradual or punctuated equilibrium model) is nearly zero.

There is a LOT of evidence that evolutionary theories predict with high accuracy, but no intelligent design theory could. Start with the fossil record. We have found certain sets of complete fossil records, that is, where all the major intermediate forms have been found. Well, current theories of evolution would be false if the order of those fossils were completely random, but they're not. No, they're in the order predicted (you can't predict the exact intermediate forms, but not all orders are consistent with evolutionary theory).

On the contrary, an intelligent design theory is consistent with ALL orders such fossils could ever appear in. That means that the fossil record serves as evidence FOR evolutionary theory but can't serve as evidence FOR intelligent design, since ALL possibilities are equally probable. The fossil record simply can't be used to test ID.

That is a pattern that continues with other, even more important, forms of evidence. There is no reason a "tree of life" should emerge if you assume all organisms were simply created at some moment in time. The relationships (calculated through a distance matrix) could be anything! But, they aren't. They support the claims made by evolutionary theory. Thus, such distance matrices (how different the genomes are of various organisms) serve as more evidence FOR evolutionary theory but can't help support ID theory, since ID theory doesn't predict this particular relationship - it is simply noncommittal on it, meaning it's useless for explaining why the relationships are THAT way and not different!

Furthermore, some aspects of certain Creationist theories can be "disproven" if you wish. Those suggesting the Earth is only a few thousand years old have radioactive dating to worry about (not that they care about "facts", but in science such dating methods would be sufficient to rule out many Creationist theories).

And then you can look at how organisms are designed.

In the theory of evolution, you expect that designs are near optimal GIVEN the previous step. So, IF you already have an inverted eye, then GIVEN that construct, evolution should produce a near-optimal structure. But, of course one can design a FAR better eye if one started from scratch.

ID theory can't explain this, but evolutionary theories can.

Then you have arguments about irreducible complexity from ID people where many systems they claim are irreducibly complex have been shown not to be. Computer simulations not only show evolution can account for such changes, but that the rate of change is sufficient to work in the time given.

The list goes on and on. Point is the theory of evolution does NOT rely at ALL on faith. It is a theory that best fits the data we have, meaning it is consistent with the data we have, but NOT consistent with most other possibilities. This is totally unlike ID where you can't even test the theory.

And keep in mind evolution requires only mechanisms that we have "proof" exist. I mean whether it's cosmic radiation that is a source of mutations or changes in geology that allow for changing environments organisms need to adapt to, evolution uses only natural phenomena we can "prove" exist. ID requires faith and has FAR less power of explanation than evolution has (something consistent with every possibility is a useless idea).

Finally, look at the deceptive nature of Creationist websites. Why do they pick one piece of evidence, take it totally out of context and hope the reader isn't knowledgable enough to find the flaw?? Why is it that among biologists, there are practically none (who actually publish research papers) that claim evolution doesn't account for the variability of life? Why is it that NOT ONE scientific research paper supporting ID theory has EVER been published?

WHY? Because it's stuff you can only accept if you have faith. Go with what is most supported by evidence and there is no competition for the theory of evolution.

I still don't get why you keep defending evolution. Noone is saying that evolution didn't occur. The dispute that I bring up isn't about evolution as awhole but rather how incomplete the theory is as to make it unreliable as a bedrock of determining what happened over the millenium. If you were to grade the evolution theories for a college paper you would have to give it an incomplete up to this point in time. Obviously some evolution took place but there are still too many holes to say we have a clear picture of the history. Right now the picture is out of focus but we can make out a vague shape. Intelligent design doesn't dispute evolution in the big picture but rather it says that man was created specifically by a creator. It doesn't say how he was created. It doesn't say he was created from nothing.

Think of this scenario. A being goes around the universe and plants the seeds of life on certain planets. He periodically checks up on these planets every couple of million years. On the planets were complex life begins to evolve he picks particular life forms to "uplift" and genetically alter. On Earth he chose the simien species to "uplift". He genetically manipulates their brains so that they can comprehend the complex learning curve they will need to evolve into creatures that can take over his job someday. When they are ready he reveals himself to a few of them and gives them some messages so that they can teach their fellow creatures what will be needed to evolve further. Essentially, every religion has some form of this basic concept. Some will say he created the very universe, others will say he created man. Doesn't matter.

Now I ask you. How would you be able to determine that gentic manipulation was undertaken way back when with modern scietific tools. Answer, you couldn't.

Question number two. The concept of God is so ingrained in man, that if he didn't exist, you would have to conclude that man is insane and mentally damaged. There isn't another lifeform on this planet that suffers from the type of delusion that you propose. So there are twio theories. Either man somehow knows deep down and is connected depp down with some creator whether through a story passed on from the first generation to have contact or through some intuitive process or mankind is severly retarded and flawed.

You seem to limit science to the observable dimension when it suits your needs but then wander into more expansive areas when it suits you. It is not enough to not be able to prove or test a theory to discount it. You must be able to disprove it to kill it once and for all. The concept of God is beyond modern scientific methods to prove or disprove so that an honest scientist would say that he has no opinion on the matter and that he can't pursue the matter through modern scietific methods and therefore will limit himself to pursuing things he can prove or disprove. Now if he wants to get into pure theory he can certainly pose statistical probabilities to any host of things without being able to prove or disprove them but he should admit that it is only his opinion and therefore rests on his faith in himself. In other words faith. And as such he would be going into the realm of philosophy rather than science. And that really is what this boils down too. Scientists should stay out of the realm of philosophy in that they are ill prepared to offer anything substantive due to their myopic worldview. Philosophy is a synthesis of all learned practices and requires a generalist rather than a specialist to pursue it.

ckb2001

06-30-2007, 02:13 PM

I still don't get why you keep defending evolution. Noone is saying that evolution didn't occur. Intelligent design doesn't dispute evolution in the big picture but rather it says that man was created specifically by a creator. It doesn't say how he was created. It doesn't say he was created from nothing.

Think of this scenario. A being goes around the universe and plants the seeds of life on certain planets. He periodically checks up on these planets every couple of million years. On the planets were complex life begins to evolve he picks particular life forms to "uplift" and genetically alter. On Earth he chose the simien species to "uplift". He genetically manipulates their brains so that they can comprehend the complex learning curve they will need to evolve into creatures that can take over his job someday. When they are ready he reveals himself to a few of them and gives them some messages so that they can teach their fellow creatures what will be needed to evolve further. Essentially, every religion has some form of this basic concept. Some will say he created the very universe, others will say he created man. Doesn't matter.

Now I ask you. How would you be able to determine that gentic manipulation was undertaken way back when with modern scietific tools. Answer, you couldn't.

There are two things I was defending: 1) that science is not a religion (you made that assertion and it's false because nothing is accepted on faith alone), and 2) evolutionary theories.

So, why do I keep defending evolution you ask? Because it's a common misconception among those (as you are) saying ID is NOT attacking evolution but just saying the seeds of what allowed evolution to occur were created by some Creator. Well, that's false, because ID is actually attacking evolution. The scenario you paint above is NOT what the ID movement was trying to claim is correct.

Here's the single best link on the evolution/ID debate I know of. It's the actual judge's decision on ID in the Dover, Pennsylvania case:
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmiller.pdf

First of all, note that one of the claims ID proponents are making is that ID is science. It is NOT (same kind of "lumping together" you made, which is totally uncalled for). Here's what the judge found:

QUOTE:
"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) IDâ€™s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

..

On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: â€œThere are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.â€ (22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed.
-------------------------------

Now, let's look at #2 and #3 since those go directly to the question of why I should keep defending evolution. It turns out what most people on the "other" side are doing is actually refuting evolution, not just suggesting evolutionary theories are correct but that there exists a Creator.

QUOTE:
"As referenced, the concept of irreducible complexity is IDâ€™s alleged scientific centerpiece. Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."

..

"Notably, the NAS has rejected Professor Beheâ€™s claim for irreducible complexity by using the following cogent reasoning:

[S]tructures and processes that are claimed to be â€˜irreduciblyâ€™ complex typically are not on closer inspection. For example, it is incorrect to assume that a complex structure or biochemical process can function only if all its components are present and functioning as we see them today. Complex biochemical systems can be built up from simpler systems through natural selection. Thus, the â€˜historyâ€™ of a protein can be traced through simpler organisms . . . The evolution of complex molecular systems can occur in several ways. Natural selection can bring together parts of a system for one function at one time and then, at a later time, recombine those parts with other systems of components to produce a system that has a different function. Genes can be duplicated, altered, and then amplified through natural selection. The complex biochemical cascade resulting in blood clotting has been explained in this fashion.

..

"First, with regard to the bacterial flagellum, Dr. Miller pointed to peerreviewed studies that identified a possible precursor to the bacterial flagellum, a subsystem that was fully functional, namely the Type-III Secretory System. (2:8-20 (Miller); P-854.23-854.32)."

..

"Second, with regard to the blood-clotting cascade, Dr. Miller demonstrated that the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade has been disproven by peer-reviewed studies dating back to 1969, which show that dolphinsâ€™ and whalesâ€™ blood clots despite missing a part of the cascade, a study that was confirmed by molecular testing in 1998. (1:122-29 (Miller); P-854.17-854.22). Additionally and more recently, scientists published studies showing that in puffer fish, blood clots despite the cascade missing not only one, but three parts. (1:128-29 (Miller))."

..

"Although in Darwinâ€™s Black Box, Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system at the time, but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin. (P-647 at 139; 2:26-27 (Miller)). However, Dr. Miller presented peer-reviewed studies refuting Professor Beheâ€™s claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex."
--------------------------------

So, as you see, ID DOES attack evolution, trying to say there are things evolution CANNOT explain, using an irreducible complexity argument. ID is NOT just saying there is a Creator but that evolutionary theory is correct. So, you are incorrect when it comes to the kinds of assertions being made about evolution by the majority of those that have argued similar things to what you argued.

I mean lumping science as a religion is one of the hallmarks of their arguments. So, naturally when you do that, or when you say both have to be accepted on faith (totally false in the case of evolution) the thought occurs to me you're just using the same arguments either Creationists or ID people use. I mean they are the ones saying ID is a science - or there is a "Creation science". And they are actually trying to refute evolution, not just propose an alternative that is consistent with it.

Now, if you think differently, so be it, but as long as you continue to suggest faith is necessary to accept evolutionary theory, you're still attacking evolution, and I will keep defending it.

Question number two. The concept of God is so ingrained in man, that if he didn't exist, you would have to conclude that man is insane and mentally damaged. There isn't another lifeform on this planet that suffers from the type of delusion that you propose. So there are twio theories. Either man somehow knows deep down and is connected depp down with some creator whether through a story passed on from the first generation to have contact or through some intuitive process or mankind is severly retarded and flawed.

You seem to limit science to the observable dimension when it suits your needs but science is supposed to be far more expansive. It is not enough to not be able to prove or test a theory to discount it. You must be able to disprove it to kill it once and for all. The concept of God is beyond modern scientific methods to prove or disprove so that an honest scientist would say that he has no opinion on the matter and that he can't pursue the matter through modern scietific methods and therefore will limit himself to pursuing things he can prove or disprove. Now if he wants to get into pure theory he can certainly pose statistical probabilities to any host of things without being able to prove or disprove them but he should admit that it is only his opinion and therefore rests on his faith in himself. In other words faith

The first sentence is false of course. Humans have thought things are true for long periods of time that were later shown to be false.

You really believe what you said? If so, then what about concepts like the Earth being flat? That was basically universally accepted until shown otherwise. Now what? Now, it's nearly universally accepted the Earth isn't flat. So, which group is "insane and mentally damaged" in your mind?

Your argument is absurd either way. To even say something like that means that somehow if the great majority of humans believe in something, then it must be true. Obviously, that's false.

Oh, and about 1/5 of all humans on this planet do NOT believe in God. So, is your threshhold 80%?

Just to give more examples, it was once nearly universally believed that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones, than the Earth was in the center of the universe, etc...

Like I said, the argument is absurd.

Finally, to the last paragraph, honest scientists do say they don't know how to determine whether God exists scientifically. I take exactly that same position. But, once again you insert another falsehood and again attack science, including all scientific theories, by saying FAITH is involved in making a probabilistic statement.

I've tried explaining this same argument to you and others before, and for some odd reason the ardently religious either can't understand it or just refuse to (since it would refute one of their most popular means of attacking science).

To say there is a zero probability of God existing first of all assumes we do NOT know whether God exists or not. That already shows this honesty. Second of all, it shows the power of mathematics in being able to quantify how likely something is, something you can't do with intuition alone. Third of all, there is NO faith involved - it's just logic.

Again, the argument goes as follows:

1) Through ANY finite number of data points, there exist an infinite number of distinct functions that perfectly fit it.

2) The assertion an omnipotent God exists can be represented mathematically in essentially a unique way (meaning all representations reduce to one). Specifically, you have a "God" variable and all others: x1, x2, ... where the "God" variable determines all others. The reason it's unique is because you can't add any relations among the variables if "God" is omnipotent.

3) Since there is only 1 model out of an infinite number, the probability is 1/infinity, which is zero.

That requires NO faith. Not only are you totally misrepresenting science (just like the ID people), you are attacking science (just like ID), and when you said this stuff about evolution - that it required faith - you attacked evolution too.

I don't know if it will ever register in you, but there is NO faith involved here when saying the probability God exists is zero percent. That's just mathematics.

adamprez2003

06-30-2007, 08:26 PM

As to the earth being flat and heavier objects falling faster than lighter ones that was accepted by scientists as well as non scientists. Science didn't begin with the 17th century as you purported in an earlier thread but rather with the invention of fire or even earlier.

If all you are saying is that science can't prove or disprove God then we are in agreement

ckb2001

06-30-2007, 08:37 PM

As to the earth being flat and heavier objects falling faster than lighter ones that was accepted by scientists as well as non scientists. Science didn't begin with the 17th century as you purported in an earlier thread but rather with the invention of fire or even earlier.

Sure, there are isolated examples of science in antiquity (Greek mathematics for example). But, in general, what we call science - the systematic use (so not just something in isolation) of the scientific method to solve problems generally dates to the 16th/17th centuries during what is called the scientific revolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Revolution
"The event which most historians of science call the scientific revolution can be dated roughly as having begun in 1543, the year in which Nicolaus Copernicus published his De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) and Andreas Vesalius published his De humani corporis fabrica (On the Fabric of the Human body). As with many historical demarcations, historians of science disagree about its boundaries, some seeing elements contributing to the revolution as early as the 14th century and finding its last stages in chemistry and biology in the 18th and 19th centuries.[1] There is general agreement, however, that the intervening period saw a fundamental transformation in scientific ideas in physics, astronomy and biology, in institutions supporting scientific investigation, and in the more widely held picture of the universe."
-----------------------

If all you are saying is that science can't prove or disprove God then we are in agreement

That's all I've been saying regarding science and God. Of course, there are many other things I said that dealt with errors or misperceptions you have of science. Whether we agree on those things, I don't know.

adamprez2003

06-30-2007, 08:45 PM

Sure, there are isolated examples of science in antiquity (Greek mathematics for example). But, in general, what we call science - the systematic use (so not just something in isolation) of the scientific method to solve problems generally dates to the 16th/17th centuries during what is called the scientific revolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Revolution
"The event which most historians of science call the scientific revolution can be dated roughly as having begun in 1543, the year in which Nicolaus Copernicus published his De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) and Andreas Vesalius published his De humani corporis fabrica (On the Fabric of the Human body). As with many historical demarcations, historians of science disagree about its boundaries, some seeing elements contributing to the revolution as early as the 14th century and finding its last stages in chemistry and biology in the 18th and 19th centuries.[1] There is general agreement, however, that the intervening period saw a fundamental transformation in scientific ideas in physics, astronomy and biology, in institutions supporting scientific investigation, and in the more widely held picture of the universe."
-----------------------

That's all I've been saying regarding science and God. Of course, there are many other things I said that dealt with errors or misperceptions you have of science. Whether we agree on those things, I don't know.

I would say the study of astronomy which was practiced for thousands of years is obviously science.

As for where we agree and disagree I would probably hypothesize that where we disagree most on science is how far along we are on our journey of knowledge. I would argue man has just started on that journey (the equivalent of a five year old in human terms) whereas I would guess you believe we are further along (perhaps the equivalent of a 20 year old) If I'm wrong on that account it's not that important

ckb2001

06-30-2007, 08:56 PM

I would say the study of astronomy which was practiced for thousands of years is obviously science.

As for where we agree and disagree I would probably hypothesize that where we disagree most on science is how far along we are on our journey of knowledge. I would argue man has just started on that journey (the equivalent of a five year old in human terms) whereas I would guess you believe we are further along (perhaps the equivalent of a 20 year old) If I'm wrong on that account it's not that important

No, we've barely touched the surface. I can't prove that, but it seems likely. First of all, the area I'm in - brain science - is definitely in its fetal stage. We have a relatively good understanding of the individual neurons and the first few stages of neural processing, but most of the neural processing after that isn't understood well.

In most areas of biology, one could argue we have only scratched the surface.

In physics, it's hard to tell. Maybe we really are just one step away from having a true unified theory, and maybe we aren't. But, physics is definitely well-advanced. If you want to put an "age" on it (compared to a human lifespan), it's probably at least in the 40's or 50's.

So, that depends on the science. And then there are many social sciences that have just barely begun or not at all. So, overall, we haven't progressed that far.

And as for the astronomy comment, it takes us a bit deeper into what is and what isn't science. You'll notice I said Greek mathematics, even though there were many other cultures that developed good math. However, there was one crucial distinction. In the other cultures, math was more like "do step 1, then 2, then 3, and then experience tells us you'll get the right answer".

In ancient Greece, they developed the first crucible of modern mathematics in what we call a "mathematical proof". This allowed the Greeks to prove properties for ALL elements of a set instead of just those they experimented with.

So, when looking at the huge amount of data gathered on the stars and medicine, it's often of the form "do this, then do that, and you'll get this result based on our experience". There were few cases of a systematic means of inference in those cases, so that's borderline science. Maybe you could argue it's descriptive science, but it's not science as we know it.

adamprez2003

06-30-2007, 10:09 PM

No, we've barely touched the surface. I can't prove that, but it seems likely. First of all, the area I'm in - brain science - is definitely in its fetal stage. We have a relatively good understanding of the individual neurons and the first few stages of neural processing, but most of the neural processing after that isn't understood well.

In most areas of biology, one could argue we have only scratched the surface.

In physics, it's hard to tell. Maybe we really are just one step away from having a true unified theory, and maybe we aren't. But, physics is definitely well-advanced. If you want to put an "age" on it (compared to a human lifespan), it's probably at least in the 40's or 50's.

So, that depends on the science. And then there are many social sciences that have just barely begun or not at all. So, overall, we haven't progressed that far.

And as for the astronomy comment, it takes us a bit deeper into what is and what isn't science. You'll notice I said Greek mathematics, even though there were many other cultures that developed good math. However, there was one crucial distinction. In the other cultures, math was more like "do step 1, then 2, then 3, and then experience tells us you'll get the right answer".

In ancient Greece, they developed the first crucible of modern mathematics in what we call a "mathematical proof". This allowed the Greeks to prove properties for ALL elements of a set instead of just those they experimented with.

So, when looking at the huge amount of data gathered on the stars and medicine, it's often of the form "do this, then do that, and you'll get this result based on our experience". There were few cases of a systematic means of inference in those cases, so that's borderline science. Maybe you could argue it's descriptive science, but it's not science as we know it.

Science to me is a set of building blocks. You start at the base or the basic and you evolve and build upon it. Periodically you destroy a few levels when something causes you to realize you have been building incorrectly and then you begin anew. The Mayans had a pretty good understanding of the celestial skies and rather large time scales and whether it was based on experience or proof I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on.

As to physics, I suspect it too is in its infant stages in that I think we have hit some barriers that are going to cause us to have to revisit certain laws or principles upon which modern science is based. The question of gravity right now seems to be a rather major stumbling block and it seems to me that is one of the founding pillars of physics and until we get that straightenwed out we won't be able to move on to the next stages. We may have to go backwards before we can go forward again.

ckb2001

06-30-2007, 10:27 PM

Science to me is a set of building blocks. You start at the base or the basic and you evolve and build upon it. Periodically you destroy a few levels when something causes you to realize you have been building incorrectly and then you begin anew. The Mayans had a pretty good understanding of the celestial skies and rather large time scales and whether it was based on experience or proof I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on.

The Mayans are a good example of the difference between what we would call science and something that's in a transition between philosophy and science.

The Mayans developed the most accurate calendar of all ancient peoples. That was just a set of mathematical formulae however. That mathematics told them NOTHING about the forces behind the movement of the celestial bodies or in general the reasons why things were the way they were. In fact, it gave them no real information about the physical world except how to predict certain celestial events.

Contrast that with science, specifically Newton and his theory of motion and his law of gravitation (it was only with Newton that the West had a calendar as accurate as the Mayas).

With Newton, mathematical relations among measurable phenomena on Earth + mathematics far more advanced than what the Mayas ever had in calculus allowed him to predict the orbit of celestial bodies with the same equations that allowed him to predict motion on Earth, regardless of whether it was due to gravitation or another force.

See, this science allowed us to postulate HOW the physical world actually worked and say the movement of the celestial bodies constitutes one way of testing the theories. With the Mayas, their calendar simply told them nothing about they physical mechanisms behind the movements of celestial bodies.

That's a key distinction not just between Mayan astronomy versus astronomy today, but also between most other ancient cultures' astronomy versus what we have today.

As to physics, I suspect it too is in its infant stages in that I think we have hit some barriers that are going to cause us to have to revisit certain laws or principles upon which modern science is based. The question of gravity right now seems to be a rather major stumbling block and it seems to me that is one of the founding pillars of physics and until we get that straightenwed out we won't be able to move on to the next stages. We may have to go backwards before we can go forward again.

Well, the thing with physics is there is a good chance we are one step before the end. Of course, they thought that at the end of the 19th century and it turned out two of the greatest revolutions in physics occurred after that, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, both emerging out of the need to explain what seemed to be very small problems.

Will that happen again? Who knows. But, the point is it actually does seem like it's possible we are one step before a unified theory in physics. In the biological sciences, no one could ever even start to think that way. Just based on what we know in brain science, we are easily closer to the beginning than the end.

So, there is a significant difference between some sciences (like physics and chemistry) versus others (biology) in terms of how close we think they might be to a "complete" theory of all phenomena they in principle must explain and understand.

Who knows of course, but the point is physics is far more advanced than many other sciences.

Dolphin39

07-01-2007, 01:03 AM

There will be millions, including countless "scientists", who will be VERY surprised when the day comes when all born again Christians are caught up in the air to be with Jesus, while all the nonbelievers are left standing on earth wondering what just happened. Who knows what "excuse" scientists will offer?

During the rapture, Jesus, along with all born again Christians, will return to earth to deal with the Anti-christ, and those who rejected Jesus.

Basically, it's going to be a good old fashioned butt kicking of biblical proportion! BTW, the butt kicking will be totally lopsided. And, guess who wins the fight and is right. Clue #1, most scientists will be wrong. No, it won't be pretty.

Is your heart right with God?

I pray it is...praise God.

adamprez2003

07-01-2007, 01:33 AM

Just so people understand what Nietzsche was writing
Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: "I am looking for God! I am looking for God!"
As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances.

"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and again regarded his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time has not come yet. The tremendous event is still on its way, still travelling - it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the distant stars - and yet they have done it themselves."

It has been further related that on that same day the madman entered divers churches and there sang a requiem. Led out and quietened, he is said to have retorted each time: "what are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchres of God?"

muscle979

07-01-2007, 11:06 AM

There will be millions, including countless "scientists", who will be VERY surprised when the day comes when all born again Christians are caught up in the air to be with Jesus, while all the nonbelievers are left standing on earth wondering what just happened. Who knows what "excuse" scientists will offer?

During the rapture, Jesus, along with all born again Christians, will return to earth to deal with the Anti-christ, and those who rejected Jesus.

Basically, it's going to be a good old fashioned butt kicking of biblical proportion! BTW, the butt kicking will be totally lopsided. And, guess who wins the fight and is right. Clue #1, most scientists will be wrong. No, it won't be pretty.

Is your heart right with God?

I pray it is...praise God.

I think a more likely story is that millions grow old and die disappointed because this fairy tale never happens. What percentage of the world is christian? Maybe a quarter? Do you honestly think 3/4 of the world just have it all wrong?

ABrownLamp

07-01-2007, 11:59 AM

I think a more likely story is that millions grow old and die disappointed because this fairy tale never happens. What percentage of the world is christian? Maybe a quarter? Do you honestly think 3/4 of the world just have it all wrong?

I dont think how many believe discourages the religious. I mean there are around 100 of the Westboro Baptist people (thank God for 9/11, God hates fags) and that doesnt stop them from believing. Thats the thing about faith in religion. No matter how kooky it is, all one has to do is believe. In fact, for most religions, that is all that counts. Nothing else you do in life matters. Its bs that is so blatantly obvious its almost a slap in the face.

muscle979

07-01-2007, 03:24 PM

I dont think how many believe discourages the religious. I mean there are around 100 of the Westboro Baptist people (thank God for 9/11, God hates fags) and that doesnt stop them from believing. Thats the thing about faith in religion. No matter how kooky it is, all one has to do is believe. In fact, for most religions, that is all that counts. Nothing else you do in life matters. Its bs that is so blatantly obvious its almost a slap in the face.

That is a dangerous mindset to have too.

adamprez2003

07-01-2007, 05:49 PM

I dont think how many believe discourages the religious. I mean there are around 100 of the Westboro Baptist people (thank God for 9/11, God hates fags) and that doesnt stop them from believing. Thats the thing about faith in religion. No matter how kooky it is, all one has to do is believe. In fact, for most religions, that is all that counts. Nothing else you do in life matters. Its bs that is so blatantly obvious its almost a slap in the face.

That is a complete misrepresentation of the place faith has in religion. I am hard pressed to come up with one religion where that may apply. Perhaps, Anton Levay's reintrepretation of Satanism might come close to believing that concept, perhaps some of the older pagan religions but there isn't one major religion that that applies too. That has to be one of the most blindly ignorant statements I have ever read concerning religion and faith's place in it

ABrownLamp

07-01-2007, 06:33 PM

That is a complete misrepresentation of the place faith has in religion. I am hard pressed to come up with one religion where that may apply. Perhaps, Anton Levay's reintrepretation of Satanism might come close to believing that concept, perhaps some of the older pagan religions but there isn't one major religion that that applies too. That has to be one of the most blindly ignorant statements I have ever read concerning religion and faith's place in it

No it is that simple.

I mean how else can a convicted murder on death row get into heaven? He needs faith and needs to truly feel sorry for his actions...thats it!

adamprez2003

07-01-2007, 06:46 PM

No it is that simple.

I mean how else can a convicted murder on death row get into heaven? He needs faith and needs to truly feel sorry for his actions...thats it!

Why did he kill? Was he a serial murderer or did he kill to protect himself? Did he live a life devoid of anything positive or was the murder a single act of weakness? Murder, without just cause, is universally admonished in every major religion. One cannot just go about killing people indiscriminately, believe in a God and feel sorry for his actions to get into heaven, paradise or have good karma. It simply doesn't work that way in any of the religions.

ABrownLamp

07-01-2007, 07:37 PM

Why did he kill? Was he a serial murderer or did he kill to protect himself? Did he live a life devoid of anything positive or was the murder a single act of weakness? Murder, without just cause, is universally admonished in every major religion. One cannot just go about killing people indiscriminately, believe in a God and feel sorry for his actions to get into heaven, paradise or have good karma. It simply doesn't work that way in any of the religions.

Ok, so only select murderers are welcome! Well I used the most extreme example and showed you that even after one commits the most heinous of acts, God is still willing to let some of them in. Although I'm sure one can easily interpret the Bible as being all inclusive; as in even mass murderers can enter the kingdom of heaven.

Regardless, if all a murderer needs (lets say just only one murder and over money) is faith and to be sorry for his actions, then why would the rest of us need anything else? Thats what I'm saying - all you really need is faith.

I mean most of the time you wouldnt even know to ask for forgiveness becuase you dont realize youre committing sin! So I dont even think being sorry is necessary. If you really want, but cannot afford the iPhone, which your friend has, you are breaking one of the Ten Commandments! I mean would you even recognize that you need to ask for forgiveness? So yes - as I said before - all one needs is faith

adamprez2003

07-01-2007, 08:01 PM

Ok, so only select murderers are welcome! Well I used the most extreme example and showed you that even after one commits the most heinous of acts, God is still willing to let some of them in. Although I'm sure one can easily interpret the Bible as being all inclusive; as in even mass murderers can enter the kingdom of heaven.

Regardless, if all a murderer needs (lets say just only one murder and over money) is faith and to be sorry for his actions, then why would the rest of us need anything else? Thats what I'm saying - all you really need is faith.

I mean most of the time you wouldnt even know to ask for forgiveness becuase you dont realize youre committing sin! So I dont even think being sorry is necessary. If you really want, but cannot afford the iPhone, which your friend has, you are breaking one of the Ten Commandments! I mean would you even recognize that you need to ask for forgiveness? So yes - as I said before - all one needs is faith

Find me one religion that says all you need is faith and to feel sorry to get into heaven. There isn't one. The Catholics dont believe that, the Buddhists dont believe that, the Muslims don't believe that, the Hindus don't believe that, the Mormons don't believe that. The closest you can come to that overly simplistic explanantion is perhaps a few of the Protestant sects belief in the sola fide concept but it is not enough to simply have faith, one must accompany that with works

Perhaps you think only Protestants are nuts but you should learn more about their beliefs if you are going to summarize their faith for them

ABrownLamp

07-01-2007, 08:18 PM

Find me one religion that says all you need is faith and to feel sorry to get into heaven. There isn't one. The Catholics dont believe that, the Buddhists dont believe that, the Muslims don't believe that, the Hindus don't believe that, the Mormons don't believe that. The closest you can come to that overly simplistic explanantion is perhaps a few of the Protestant sects belief in the sola fide concept but it is not enough to simply have faith, one must accompany that with works

Perhaps you think only Protestants are nuts but you should learn more about their beliefs if you are going to summarize their faith for them

I just got finished a fairly lengthy response on how all one needs is faith and you didnt even attempt to respond to it or tell me how I was incorrect. All you did was recite exactly what you said in your previous post!

I'll try one more time - if inmates on death row (who can do nothing but sit in their cell for 23 hours per day) can enter the kingdom of heaven by being sorry for his actions and having faith in the lord, then why would it be any more complicated for the rest of us? Especially when most of the time we dont even recognize that we're committing a sin - so we dont even know to ask for forgiveness. Like in my previous example of wanting an iPhone like your buddy has. Thats coveting - a Ten Commandment rule! So if we dont ask forgiveness (and come on, would you really be sorry or getting jealous) for breaking the ten commandments and are still able to enter heaven - that leaves one variable - FAITH!

So until you are able to answer this, I dont see how you can keep repeating the same thing I quoted you for above. For a third time

adamprez2003

07-01-2007, 08:32 PM

I just got finished a fairly lengthy response on how all one needs is faith and you didnt even attempt to respond to it or tell me how I was incorrect. All you did was recite exactly what you said in your previous post!

I'll try one more time - if inmates on death row (who can do nothing but sit in their cell for 23 hours per day) can enter the kingdom of heaven by being sorry for his actions and having faith in the lord, then why would it be any more complicated for the rest of us? The answer once again is that they couldn't. In any major religion. Even in some protestant faiths that would not be enough to get into heaven. What part of that answer don't you understand?

ABrownLamp

07-01-2007, 08:43 PM

The answer once again is that they couldn't. In any major religion. Even in some protestant faiths that would not be enough to get into heaven. What part of that answer don't you understand?

So please elaborate on what else a death row inmate needs to do to get in.

adamprez2003

07-01-2007, 08:56 PM

So please elaborate on what else a death row inmate needs to do to get in. In Catholicism, Mormonism, Islam he would have to lead a good life. The murder would have to be an exception to the rest of his life. He would be judged according to the totality of his life, in action and thought. In Buddhism he would have bad karma come back to him to even out the balance. In Hinduism, well it's so diverse that I would have to describe at least six different sects, but generally you would be denied a connectiion with God. With certain Protestant sects you would have to completely transform yourself, acknowledge your past as a sinner and live out the rest of your days in the light of God. I suspect your arguments here are directed at these Protestant sects but there is action involved, meaning you transform your life afterwards and live accordingly. It is action and honest connection to God that would bring you heaven. Saying faith and being sorry is a false way to present the teachings of these protestant sects

ABrownLamp

07-01-2007, 09:32 PM

In Catholicism, Mormonism, Islam he would have to lead a good life. The murder would have to be an exception to the rest of his life. He would be judged according to the totality of his life, in action and thought. In Buddhism he would have bad karma come back to him to even out the balance. In Hinduism, well it's so diverse that I would have to describe at least six different sects, but generally you would be denied a connectiion with God. With certain Protestant sects you would have to completely transform yourself, acknowledge your past as a sinner and live out the rest of your days in the light of God. I suspect your arguments here are directed at these Protestant sects but there is action involved, meaning you transform your life afterwards and live accordingly. It is action and honest connection to God that would bring you heaven. Saying faith and being sorry is a false way to present the teachings of these protestant sects

All it takes is a bit of internet research to see what you are saying is at least inaccurate, but more than likely just flat out untrue.

Regarding getting into heaven-

The people who get to go to heaven are the ones who â€œget right with Godâ€ by beginning a relationship with Him through His Son Jesus Christ."
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/heaven.shtml

Regarding only people "leading a good life" getting into heaven-

The Bible says that nobody is good enough to get into heaven. Each one of us has broken God's commandments--not one person is excepted. You have personally lied and committed other sins.
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/2_heaven.htm

Regarding criterion for being saved-

[I]f thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, THOU SHALT BE SAVED. (Romans 10:9)

I mean it's pretty much common knowledge that everyone is a sinner in the eyes of God. So what you've done in life as far as being a productive member of society really has little bearing on whether you are saved or not.

adamprez2003

07-01-2007, 09:39 PM

All it takes is a bit of internet research to see what you are saying is at least inaccurate, but more than likely just flat out untrue.

Regarding getting into heaven-

The people who get to go to heaven are the ones who â€œget right with Godâ€ by beginning a relationship with Him through His Son Jesus Christ."
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/heaven.shtml

Regarding only people "leading a good life" getting into heaven-

The Bible says that nobody is good enough to get into heaven. Each one of us has broken God's commandments--not one person is excepted. You have personally lied and committed other sins.
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/2_heaven.htm

Regarding criterion for being saved-

[I]f thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, THOU SHALT BE SAVED. (Romans 10:9)

I mean it's pretty much common knowledge that everyone is a sinner in the eyes of God. So what you've done in life as far as being a productive member of society really has little bearing on whether you are saved or not.

You asked "what else" do they have to do - not "what" do they have to do, implying I didn't need to repeat the two examples you had given earlier but rather I just needed to add upon that which I had stated.

The first quote is from something called the "willow creek member churches" which is a small Protestant group which as I said believe in the practice of "sola fide".

Of course you failed to delve deeper into the site and left out this part

The big issues here are foundation, motivation, and consistency. If our foundation is the Bible, and if our motivation is being like Christ, and if we consistently seek to live like Christ, then we know that Jesus covers our sins, and we are still right with God. (See 1 John 2:5,6 and 1 John 5:13.) However, if we say that we know God, and yet do not consistently seek to live like Christ by obeying Him (that is, we continue to â€œwalk in darknessâ€) God says that we are liars and the truth is not in us. (See 1 John 2:3,4 and 1 John 1:6.) Thus, if you make a decision to accept Christ, you must understand that it means a lifetime commitment toward seeking to be like Jesus in the way that you live. This is what â€œstaying right with Godâ€ is all aboutâ€”becoming more like Jesus! We certainly hope that you will choose Jesus!
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2007/07/bar4-1.jpg

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/get_right.shtml

Thus action is required not just faith and sorrow

The best I could make out of the second quote is it's an individual. I don't comment on individual beliefs. An individual isn't a religion. There are 6 billion people on this planet and I'm not about to study 6 billion seperate belief systems.

To be fair to the guy he also adds the action of repentance and lifelong submission to God

Are you ready to repent of your sins? To repent means to forsake your evil ways and listen to God. All your life you've been your own authority</U> concerning what is right and what is wrong. You've made your own decisions while ignoring what the Lord says in His holy word, the Bible. You've served yourself and not God. To repent means that you turn to GOD AND THE BIBLE AS YOUR AUTHORITY. It means you can say, "Lord everything you say in the Bible is right. If my feelings contradict the Bible I AM WRONG. Lord I want to live under YOUR AUTHORITY, not my own."

ABrownLamp

07-01-2007, 09:43 PM

You asked "what else" do they have to do - not "what" do they have to do, implying I didn't need to repeat the two examples you had given earlier but rather I just needed to add upon that which I had stated.

And your response to what and what else they need to do, as I have shown you in my last post, is untrue.

adamprez2003

07-01-2007, 10:29 PM

Here is the definition of Sola fide from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide

Sola fide (Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_language): by faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith) alone), also historically known as the doctrine of justification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_%28theology%29) by faith, is a doctrine that distinguishes most Protestant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism) denominations from Catholicism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church), Eastern Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Christianity), and Restorationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationism) (except Seventh-day Adventism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventism)) in Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity).
The doctrine of sola fide or "faith alone" asserts that it solely is on the basis of God's grace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace) through the believer's faith alone that believers are forgiven their transgressions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin) of the Law of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Moses). The opposite position, that believers are forgiven solely on the basis of any good works is called Legalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_%28theology%29). Catholicism, Eastern Christianity and Mormonism hold that a combination of faith and good works are required for salvation.
Historically, the concept of sola fide was the basis for Martin Luther (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther)'s challenge the Roman Catholic practice of indulgences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence) for penance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penance), and for that reason it is called the material cause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_principle) of the Protestant Reformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation), while the doctrine of sola scriptura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura) is considered the formal cause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_principle). It is one of the five solas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas) of the Reformation.

Protestants have historically summarized their view with the formula: "Justification is by faith alone, but not by the faith that is alone [that is, not by a supposed faith that has no accompanying works]."[1] (http://www.the-highway.com/Justification-Gerstner.html)
The doctrine of sola fide, as formulated by Martin Luther (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther), is accepted by most Protestants, including Lutherans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran), Reformed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_churches) and Baptists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist); and as ordinarily articulated by Protestants.

PhinPhan1227

07-02-2007, 12:17 PM

Keeping the response simple, note that there are quite a few countries where most people don't believe in God. Take Japan for example. Fewer than 10 percent believe in God in Japan:
http://humaniststudies.org/enews/index.html?id=219&article=7

And Japan has one of the smallest crime rates among industrial countries in the world. It also has one of the lowest rates of teen pregnancy.

So, no the world would be fine even if people didn't believe in a higher up.

Not believing in a specific "god" is not the same as not believing that there are consequences for bad acts in life. I believe that Shinto has those repurcussions just as Budhism does. In both cases, if you do bad things in this life, there will be bad things that happen to you as a result of supernatural processes. No difference in essence.

Oh, and for the record I still think it's hysterical that we think we have the word for word of the Ten Commandments. Sinlge translations are almost never word for word, much less translations which started in ancient Hebrew, then went to Greek, then Latin, THEN German, and finally into English.

muscle979

07-02-2007, 12:54 PM

I went to church when I was kid and they always said that all you have to do to get to Heaven is accept Jesus and mean it. Based on this, if Ted Bundy sincerely asked for forgiveness and accepted Jesus as his savior at anytime before he died then he's in Heaven now. If you believe all of that stuff of course. I've never heard anything about leading a good life, you just have to make an effort to stop sinning through Jesus Christ basically at some point before you die.

ckb2001

07-02-2007, 04:39 PM

Not believing in a specific "god" is not the same as not believing that there are consequences for bad acts in life. I believe that Shinto has those repurcussions just as Budhism does. In both cases, if you do bad things in this life, there will be bad things that happen to you as a result of supernatural processes. No difference in essence.

Oh, and for the record I still think it's hysterical that we think we have the word for word of the Ten Commandments. Sinlge translations are almost never word for word, much less translations which started in ancient Hebrew, then went to Greek, then Latin, THEN German, and finally into English.

I agree with most of that, but keep in mind what I was responding to. I responded to the assertion the world would be **** if we didn't believe in a higher-up. And I truly don't think the world we be in shambles if we didn't believe in a higher-up.

However, if you really want something where supernatural forces aren't necessarily considered the cause or solution to suffering, then you actually did name one counter-example without knowing it: Buddhism attempts to free one of suffering, but unlike many other religions, it doesn't suggest that supernatural forces are behind it, but instead that natural forces are. And Buddhism doesn't ask for supernatural forces to help one ease one's suffering. No, it requires the human to become knowledgable over the causes of such suffering to end it.

It's still a religion and does ask one to accept things on faith, but that's one example of a religion that doesn't require one to believe in supernatural forces to help one ease suffering. And obviously, there exist societies of mostly agnostic or atheist people that don't break up or crumble: again, see Japan.

adamprez2003

07-02-2007, 11:21 PM

I agree with most of that, but keep in mind what I was responding to. I responded to the assertion the world would be **** if we didn't believe in a higher-up. And I truly don't think the world we be in shambles if we didn't believe in a higher-up.

However, if you really want something where supernatural forces aren't necessarily considered the cause or solution to suffering, then you actually did name one counter-example without knowing it: Buddhism attempts to free one of suffering, but unlike many other religions, it doesn't suggest that supernatural forces are behind it, but instead that natural forces are. And Buddhism doesn't ask for supernatural forces to help one ease one's suffering. No, it requires the human to become knowledgable over the causes of such suffering to end it.

It's still a religion and does ask one to accept things on faith, but that's one example of a religion that doesn't require one to believe in supernatural forces to help one ease suffering. And obviously, there exist societies of mostly agnostic or atheist people that don't break up or crumble: again, see Japan.

Dont Buddhists believe in reincarnation?

adamprez2003

07-02-2007, 11:28 PM

I went to church when I was kid and they always said that all you have to do to get to Heaven is accept Jesus and mean it. Based on this, if Ted Bundy sincerely asked for forgiveness and accepted Jesus as his savior at anytime before he died then he's in Heaven now. If you believe all of that stuff of course. I've never heard anything about leading a good life, you just have to make an effort to stop sinning through Jesus Christ basically at some point before you die.

Some Protestant churches would say that someone like Ted Bundy or Adolph Hitler could theoritically find God and be forgiven. This sounds simplistic but it would mean a complete overhaul of the individuals way of looking at the world. Hitler would've had to live a life of and for Christ after the conversion. Aklthough on the surface it seems like a get out of jail card, when you really consider how the human mind works you realize that it is next to impossible for someone like Ted Bundy or Adolph Hitler to truly transform themselves into the type of people that God would welcome into heaven. It's not enough to proclaim your conversion but you in your heart must believe it.

The concept is Sola Fide and doesn't exist in other Christian sects.

Sola fide asserts that, although all people have disobeyed God's commands, God declares those people obedient who place their confidence, their faith, in what God has done through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus). They account Christ's obedience as their own, and the only meritorious, obedience. Their assurance is that God's work in Christ is their commendation for acceptance by God. Conversely, the doctrine says that those who trust God in this way do not trust what they themselves have done (which has no worth, because of sin).
The doctrine, though never defined explicitly in the scriptural texts, holds that it is not through personal goodness that sinners are reconciled to God. Reconciliation is only through the mercy of God himself, made effectual for forgiveness through the sacrifice of his son; thus it is only through the obedience of Christ given as a substitute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement) for the disobedience of believers, who for their sake was raised from the dead, that they have confidence that they are in fact heirs of eternal life.
Protestants have historically summarized their view with the formula: "Justification is by faith alone, but not by the faith that is alone [that is, not by a supposed faith that has no accompanying works]."[1] (http://www.the-highway.com/Justification-Gerstner.html)
The doctrine of sola fide, as formulated by Martin Luther (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther), is accepted by most Protestants, including Lutherans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran), Reformed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_churches) and Baptists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist); and as ordinarily articulated by Protestants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide

I highlighted the part that still demands works after the conversion. For children the concept would be too difficult to understand so I can see why they simplified it and just said accept Jesus and all is forgiven

ckb2001

07-02-2007, 11:47 PM

Dont Buddhists believe in reincarnation?

Yeah, I didn't say they didn't believe in supernatural phenomena. I was saying there are religions where the cause of suffering and the path to relief from that suffering doesn't necessarily have to involve supernatural phenomena.

For example, this link has the "Four Noble Truths" and the "Eightfold Path":
http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism1.htm

The Buddha's Four Noble Truths explore human suffering. They may be described (somewhat simplistically) as:

1. Dukkha: Suffering exists: (Suffering is real and and almost universal. Suffering has many causes: loss, sickness, pain, failure, the impermanence of pleasure.)

2. Samudaya: There is a cause for suffering. (It is the desire to have and control things. It can take many forms: craving of sensual pleasures; the desire for fame; the desire to avoid unpleasant sensations, like fear, anger or jealousy.)

3. Nirodha: There is an end to suffering. (Suffering ceases with the final liberation of Nirvana (a.k.a. Nibbana). The mind experiences complete freedom, liberation and non-attachment. It lets go of any desire or craving.)

4. Magga: In order to end suffering, you must follow the Eightfold Path.
---------------------------

So, according to Buddhism, suffering occurs because of desire to have and control things. That's an Earthly concept.

Yeah, I didn't say they didn't believe in supernatural phenomena. I was saying there are religions where the cause of suffering and the path to relief from that suffering doesn't necessarily have to involve supernatural phenomena.

For example, this link has the "Four Noble Truths" and the "Eightfold Path":
http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism1.htm

The Buddha's Four Noble Truths explore human suffering. They may be described (somewhat simplistically) as:

1. Dukkha: Suffering exists: (Suffering is real and and almost universal. Suffering has many causes: loss, sickness, pain, failure, the impermanence of pleasure.)

2. Samudaya: There is a cause for suffering. (It is the desire to have and control things. It can take many forms: craving of sensual pleasures; the desire for fame; the desire to avoid unpleasant sensations, like fear, anger or jealousy.)

3. Nirodha: There is an end to suffering. (Suffering ceases with the final liberation of Nirvana (a.k.a. Nibbana). The mind experiences complete freedom, liberation and non-attachment. It lets go of any desire or craving.)

4. Magga: In order to end suffering, you must follow the Eightfold Path.
---------------------------

So, according to Buddhism, suffering occurs because of desire to have and control things. That's an Earthly concept.

1) the material world sucks
2) try to seek out the truth through meditation or prayer
3) cause no harm to your fellow human being
4) if you can achieve this perfect state then the material world will fall by the wayside and you will become an enlightened spiritual being who will no longer be affected by the stupidity of mankind

ckb2001

07-03-2007, 12:30 AM

Pretty much the teachings of every major religion there

1) the material world sucks
2) try to seek out the truth through meditation or prayer
3) cause no harm to your fellow human being
4) if you can achieve this perfect state then the material world will fall by the wayside and you will become an enlightened spiritual being who will no longer be affected by the stupidity of mankind

The question that's relevant here isn't what they have in common. It's what they don't have in common. Those teachings above that deal with causes of suffering and ways to alleviate suffering DIFFER from most religions in that you don't have a God or Gods or a supernatural force that is responsible for the suffering or for alleviating the suffering.

That's the main point here. Buddhism doesn't necessarily require the existence of such supernatural forces to explain or alleviate suffering (though it may for other things).

adamprez2003

07-03-2007, 12:50 AM

The question that's relevant here isn't what they have in common. It's what they don't have in common. Those teachings above that deal with causes of suffering and ways to alleviate suffering DIFFER from most religions in that you don't have a God or Gods or a supernatural force that is responsible for the suffering or for alleviating the suffering.

That's the main point here. Buddhism doesn't necessarily require the existence of such supernatural forces to explain or alleviate suffering (though it may for other things).

That's a matter of interpretation. Some people believe in literal translations and some believe in metaphorical interpretations. If you read the great books as allegories for the human condition they are exactly like Buddhism. Some people speculate that Jesus was influenced by Buddhism and that his sayings are also so inspired. Some say that he was a Buddha and there are stories in Afghanistan, Iran, India and Pakistan of Jesus traveling there during the so called lost years.

ckb2001

07-03-2007, 01:27 AM

That's a matter of interpretation. Some people believe in literal translations and some believe in metaphorical interpretations. If you read the great books as allegories for the human condition they are exactly like Buddhism. Some people speculate that Jesus was influenced by Buddhism and that his sayings are also so inspired. Some say that he was a Buddha and there are stories in Afghanistan, Iran, India and Pakistan of Jesus traveling there during the so called lost years.

The set of possible intepretations is irrelevant.

It was asserted that if humans don't believe in a higher-up, society would crumble. This "higher-up" puts limits on the kinds of interpretations we should consider. It certainly includes belief in a God or Gods. It also includes belief in some sort of supernatural force one could label as a "higher-up" that has control or an important influence on whether you suffer or not.

So, IF there are Christians that have such a metaphorical interpretation of the Bible that they don't think "God" refers to something supernatural (pretty unlikely wouldn't you say?) they automatically fall into the group of people that don't believe in a "higher-up".

Point is, even if you want to suggest "higher-up" doesn't necessarily refer to a God, there are examples of successful societies in which the majority don't believe in supernatural forces controlling or having great influence over their future suffering or degree of satisfaction.

And I gave a great example in Japan. Sure, you'll find all kinds of beliefs people have, from belief in psychics to astrologers, etc.. but in general the Japanese don't believe in a "higher-up" (entertaining astrologers and psychics doesn't imply you believe in a "higher-up") and their society functions quite well.

PhinPhan1227

07-03-2007, 03:38 PM

I agree with most of that, but keep in mind what I was responding to. I responded to the assertion the world would be **** if we didn't believe in a higher-up. And I truly don't think the world we be in shambles if we didn't believe in a higher-up.

However, if you really want something where supernatural forces aren't necessarily considered the cause or solution to suffering, then you actually did name one counter-example without knowing it: Buddhism attempts to free one of suffering, but unlike many other religions, it doesn't suggest that supernatural forces are behind it, but instead that natural forces are. And Buddhism doesn't ask for supernatural forces to help one ease one's suffering. No, it requires the human to become knowledgable over the causes of such suffering to end it.

It's still a religion and does ask one to accept things on faith, but that's one example of a religion that doesn't require one to believe in supernatural forces to help one ease suffering. And obviously, there exist societies of mostly agnostic or atheist people that don't break up or crumble: again, see Japan.

You wouldn't consider reincarnation a supernatural event? Budhism does have a "reward/punishment" system in place. Do bad things in this life, and you will reap the results in the next. As for Japan being atheist/agnostic, I found a funny stat about Japan. The percentage of people who declared themselves "non-religious" but who still kept temples in their homes. (1970's survey, 1/3rd of those self described as non-religious still kept Budhist or Shinto shrines in their homes) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinto

I think that points to a trend where people might not be making consious decisions based on religious dogma, but are still impacted by the religious beliefs of their society. Thus, it's almost impossible to say that we would be fine without religion, because we don't have any societies that have been free of religious influence. The traditions and "laws" that kids grow up with are still there whether they accept the dogma or not.

ckb2001

07-03-2007, 05:08 PM

You wouldn't consider reincarnation a supernatural event? Budhism does have a "reward/punishment" system in place. Do bad things in this life, and you will reap the results in the next. As for Japan being atheist/agnostic, I found a funny stat about Japan. The percentage of people who declared themselves "non-religious" but who still kept temples in their homes. (1970's survey, 1/3rd of those self described as non-religious still kept Budhist or Shinto shrines in their homes) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinto

I think that points to a trend where people might not be making consious decisions based on religious dogma, but are still impacted by the religious beliefs of their society. Thus, it's almost impossible to say that we would be fine without religion, because we don't have any societies that have been free of religious influence. The traditions and "laws" that kids grow up with are still there whether they accept the dogma or not.

The reincarnation thing I responded to in post #133. The point is that the main focus of Buddhism is to practice a way of easing suffering, and neither the origins of such suffering or how one can alleviate it require supernatural phenomena.

Also, in a previous thread I went into more detail about how Japanese believe (as usual can't find it), but the "Shinto" and "Buddhist" aspects of Japan have mostly to do with simple rituals (without any beliefs attached basically) Japanese undertake. For example, for marriages and funerals traditional religious ceremonies are conducted, etc.. And many of these temples you speak of have nothing to do with religious beliefs, but with tradition. They are certainly conscious of this tradition and often where it came from, but that doesn't mean they believe in the religion.

The important point for this discussion is that the great majority of Japanese don't believe in a higher-up, and yet their society functions well.

PhinPhan1227

07-05-2007, 03:17 PM

The reincarnation thing I responded to in post #133. The point is that the main focus of Buddhism is to practice a way of easing suffering, and neither the origins of such suffering or how one can alleviate it require supernatural phenomena.

Also, in a previous thread I went into more detail about how Japanese believe (as usual can't find it), but the "Shinto" and "Buddhist" aspects of Japan have mostly to do with simple rituals (without any beliefs attached basically) Japanese undertake. For example, for marriages and funerals traditional religious ceremonies are conducted, etc.. And many of these temples you speak of have nothing to do with religious beliefs, but with tradition. They are certainly conscious of this tradition and often where it came from, but that doesn't mean they believe in the religion.

The important point for this discussion is that the great majority of Japanese don't believe in a higher-up, and yet their society functions well.

Actually, you didn't. You never presented any evidence that the negative results of a current life which can manifest in the reincarnated life don't carry any weight with Budhists. "Karma" is a reward/punishment system.

"Thou believest, O Master, that beings are reborn; that they migrate in the evolution of life; and that subject to the law of karma we must reap what we sow."

As for the Japanese, again, how do you quantify the hold of ceremony versus the hold of outright dogma? If a Japanese person takes his shoes off at the door, is that simple respect for the owner of the house, or does he view it also as "bad luck". Because all those little "superstitions" may not be that well defined, but they can be very binding on the individual and the society.

Again, unless you have a society which is utterly free from superstitions to serve as a control group, than it seems impossible to me that you could fully quantify the effect of "supernatural justice" on people.

Christ man, this is a football board. Do you think there aren't atheists here who have certain things they won't do during a game because it might "jinx" the team? It's just human nature.

ckb2001

07-05-2007, 04:27 PM

Actually, you didn't. You never presented any evidence that the negative results of a current life which can manifest in the reincarnated life don't carry any weight with Budhists. "Karma" is a reward/punishment system.

"Thou believest, O Master, that beings are reborn; that they migrate in the evolution of life; and that subject to the law of karma we must reap what we sow."

I understand that, but you have to read what I asserted carefully. I said this:

QUOTE:
"Yeah, I didn't say they didn't believe in supernatural phenomena. I was saying there are religions where the cause of suffering and the path to relief from that suffering doesn't necessarily have to involve supernatural phenomena."
--------------------------

And that's true. It "doesn't necessarily" does not require me to prove such a negative. I merely showed the doctrine doesn't require one to interpret it with the assumption some supernatural power is either behind one's suffering or is necessary to relieve it.

Certainly the primary tenets of Buddhism don't suggest a follower need to believe in a "higher-up". And ultimately, that's the crux of this debate, since that's what I responded to.

As for the Japanese, again, how do you quantify the hold of ceremony versus the hold of outright dogma? If a Japanese person takes his shoes off at the door, is that simple respect for the owner of the house, or does he view it also as "bad luck". Because all those little "superstitions" may not be that well defined, but they can be very binding on the individual and the society.

Again, unless you have a society which is utterly free from superstitions to serve as a control group, than it seems impossible to me that you could fully quantify the effect of "supernatural justice" on people.

Christ man, this is a football board. Do you think there aren't atheists here who have certain things they won't do during a game because it might "jinx" the team? It's just human nature.

Well, I grew up in Japan (5 years) and I can tell you that taking shoes off is done to keep the house clean! That, more than any other reason, is the primary reason for that custom.

And I can also tell you that those ceremonies are just that: something a group of people do to show they have something in common (at the end, that's what it's about). Sure, there may be some specific meaning the average Japanese is aware of for certain rituals, but in general Japanese don't believe in them. Easiest way to demonstrate that is go to Japan and ask the people.

Japan is a great example of a society where most people do NOT believe in a higher-up and where the society functions as well as any other. Really, this isn't about superstitions (see my examples of psychics or astrologers). This is about the belief there is some supernatural power one has to take into account in order to keep society functioning. And you won't find that for all except the most irrelevant things (functionally speaking, so not symbolic) in Japan.

PhinPhan1227

07-05-2007, 04:48 PM

I understand that, but you have to read what I asserted carefully. I said this:

QUOTE:
"Yeah, I didn't say they didn't believe in supernatural phenomena. I was saying there are religions where the cause of suffering and the path to relief from that suffering doesn't necessarily have to involve supernatural phenomena."
--------------------------

And that's true. It "doesn't necessarily" does not require me to prove such a negative. I merely showed the doctrine doesn't require one to interpret it with the assumption some supernatural power is either behind one's suffering or is necessary to relieve it.

Certainly the primary tenets of Buddhism don't suggest a follower need to believe in a "higher-up". And ultimately, that's the crux of this debate, since that's what I responded to.

Well, I grew up in Japan (5 years) and I can tell you that taking shoes off is done to keep the house clean! That, more than any other reason, is the primary reason for that custom.

And I can also tell you that those ceremonies are just that: something a group of people do to show they have something in common (at the end, that's what it's about). Sure, there may be some specific meaning the average Japanese is aware of for certain rituals, but in general Japanese don't believe in them. Easiest way to demonstrate that is go to Japan and ask the people.

Japan is a great example of a society where most people do NOT believe in a higher-up and where the society functions as well as any other. Really, this isn't about superstitions (see my examples of psychics or astrologers). This is about the belief there is some supernatural power one has to take into account in order to keep society functioning. And you won't find that for all except the most irrelevant things (functionally speaking, so not symbolic) in Japan.

You are equating religion however with a defined deity, a "higher up". That's different from the discussion. And the point is that reincarnation is a punishment/reward system and as such proof that Budhists are bound at least in some ways by releigious reasons for good behavior.

As for Japan, again, you can't really ask a person and get a good look at what their underlying motivations are. Most psychologists would say that the average person doesn't have a good grasp on why they do everything they do. Again, just look at superstition. Perfectly rational people, many of whom that don't believe in god, will go out of their way because of superstitions.

Your point just isn't provable without a society that is free from such things, and no such society exists.

ckb2001

07-05-2007, 04:57 PM

You are equating religion however with a defined deity, a "higher up". That's different from the discussion. And the point is that reincarnation is a punishment/reward system and as such proof that Budhists are bound at least in some ways by releigious reasons for good behavior.

As for Japan, again, you can't really ask a person and get a good look at what their underlying motivations are. Most psychologists would say that the average person doesn't have a good grasp on why they do everything they do. Again, just look at superstition. Perfectly rational people, many of whom that don't believe in god, will go out of their way because of superstitions.

Your point just isn't provable without a society that is free from such things, and no such society exists.

The entire argument was about whether society would continue to function well even if people didn't believe in a "higher-up". THAT is the argument I rebutted. This is NOT about religion in general and I certainly didn't equate belief in a "higher-up" with religion. I mean reading my last few posts on this matter should have made that clear!!

Look, either show me evidence most Japanese believe in a "higher-up" or go with the polls that suggest they don't. You're not going to get anywhere by using devil's advocate arguments. Not only have I lived in Japan, grew up there, etc.. the polls themselves support what I'm saying.

So, as far as evidence shows, Japan IS a country where the majority do not believe in a higher up and still functions.

If you want to argue against that, then show me most Japanese do believe in a higher up (since I don't see how you'd argue Japanese society doesn't function as well as practically any other). The onus is on you to show what I said is false, not for me to rebut every possibility there is.

And finally, the explanation I gave of how many Japanese view those ceremonies and customs comes from experience living there, not from some poll of a few people. Again, counter the argument with data, not just saying "but here's another possibility".

PhinPhan1227

07-05-2007, 05:46 PM

The entire argument was about whether society would continue to function well even if people didn't believe in a "higher-up". THAT is the argument I rebutted. This is NOT about religion in general and I certainly didn't equate belief in a "higher-up" with religion. I mean reading my last few posts on this matter should have made that clear!!

Look, either show me evidence most Japanese believe in a "higher-up" or go with the polls that suggest they don't. You're not going to get anywhere by using devil's advocate arguments. Not only have I lived in Japan, grew up there, etc.. the polls themselves support what I'm saying.

So, as far as evidence shows, Japan IS a country where the majority do not believe in a higher up and still functions.

If you want to argue against that, then show me most Japanese do believe in a higher up (since I don't see how you'd argue Japanese society doesn't function as well as practically any other). The onus is on you to show what I said is false, not for me to rebut every possibility there is.

And finally, the explanation I gave of how many Japanese view those ceremonies and customs comes from experience living there, not from some poll of a few people. Again, counter the argument with data, not just saying "but here's another possibility".

Wrong. Reread the first thread. The argument is about religion, not about a specific being.

And I have presented numerous accounts to show that the Japanese people demonstrate a religious spirituality. And agin, that was the point of the thread.

Why don't you go back and reread the first post?

ckb2001

07-05-2007, 05:57 PM

Wrong. Reread the first thread. The argument is about religion, not about a specific being.

And I have presented numerous accounts to show that the Japanese people demonstrate a religious spirituality. And agin, that was the point of the thread.

Why don't you go back and reread the first post?

No, you're wrong. This started with your post #128, which quoted my response to the claim that society would go **** if people didn't believe in a higher-up.

THAT is the full context of this argument. And that's why religious spirituality isn't the topic. The question is do the majority of Japanese believe in a "higher-up"? And the answer is no.

And their society functions fine. So, that's a counter-example to what the guy I was responding to asserted.

DaFish

03-07-2008, 04:14 AM

We could make world peace, even with our furry and feathered friends by becoming vegetarians but I bet there would still be a Christian and a Muslim fighting over a carrot stick.